[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998
========================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico, Chairman
JAMES T. WALSH, New York MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas VIC FAZIO, California
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
HENRY BONILLA, Texas
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Timothy K. Sanders, Carol Murphy, John J. Ziolkowski, and Joanne L. Orndorff,
Staff Assistants
________
PART 4
RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS PROGRAMS
Research, Education, and Economics
Agricultural Research Service
Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service
Economic Research Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-872 O WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,
Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California
TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina
JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania
HENRY BONILLA, Texas ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan NITA M. LOWEY, New York
DAN MILLER, Florida JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington CHET EDWARDS, Texas
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998
----------
Tuesday, March 4, 1997.
RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS
WITNESSES
CATHERINE E. WOTEKI, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY
FLOYD P. HORN, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
EDWARD KNIPLING, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
B.H. ROBINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION,
AND EXTENSION SERVICE
SUSAN OFFUTT, ADMINISTRATOR, ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
DON BAY, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE
STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Skeen. The committee will come to order.
Today we have the Department of Agriculture research
agencies, the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, and the Economic Research
Service.
And I want to say from the outset that I consider, and I
think so does anyone else that knows anything about
agriculture, research to be the savior of the whole system. We
have to find a better product. And if we're to compete with
France, Australia, Brazil or anyone else, we have to give the
customer what they want.
We have to find a way to have a longer staple cotton, more
protein in our wheat, less fat in our hogs, and these are
things that the consumer and the buyer of our products want.
The only way to do this is through better research.
Dr. Woteki, I want to welcome you and the group with you.
If you would be kind enough to go ahead and start by
introducing the folks that are with you at the table and make
your presentation.
Dr. Woteki. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to introduce
to you Stephen Dewhurst, who I don't think needs any
introduction.
Mr. Skeen. He's fairly new.
Dr. Woteki. Dr. Floyd Horn, who is my Acting Deputy Under
Secretary. And then to my right and your left, Dr. Ed Knipling,
the Acting Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service.
Mr. Skeen. Welcome.
Dr. Woteki. Dr. Bob Robinson, the Administrator----
Mr. Skeen. He's been here a few times.
Dr. Woteki. Yes. He sure has. He is the CSREES
Administrator. Mr. Don Bay, the NASS Administrator, and Dr.
Susan Offutt, the Administrator of the Economic Research
Service.
Mr. Skeen. It's nice to have all of you. Please continue.
Dr. Woteki. What we'd like to do, sir, is to introduce for
the written record our statements. And I'd like to summarize
all of them for you very briefly.
Mr. Skeen. You are a genius. Thank you; go ahead.
Dr. Woteki. What I'd like to do is highlight our fiscal
year 1998 budget request for Research, Education and Economics.
It is a total of $1.816 billion, and actually represents a
decrease of $49 million or 2.6 percent from our fiscal year
1997 level.
I believe this budget request in total funding and in the
specific initiatives that we're putting forward represents a
sound balance between our commitment to research, education and
extension on the one hand, and the Administration's commitment
to a balanced budget on the other hand. To get on the path to a
balanced budget by the year 2002, the four agencies that are
represented here, along with other agencies within the
Department, have had to make some very difficult decisions to
reduce or to terminate some important programs in order to fund
what we believe are higher priority programs.
However, through a careful assessment of priorities, funds
for research in this budget increased by $11 million or by one
percent. The Agricultural Research Service budget is
essentially the same as this year, $800 million. The request
reflects adjusted priorities leading to an additional $10
million in research and a commensurate decrease in funds for
buildings and facilities.
The budget also provides for redirecting some funding
permitting the Agency to allocate a total of approximately $30
million in funding for high priority research programs.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service budget request is for $840 million. Funding for Formula
Programs is held constant at fiscal year 1997 appropriated
levels.
For the National Research Initiative, or the NRI as it is
popularly called, we're requesting an increase of $36 million.
Decreased funding is proposed for earmarked Special Research
Grants Programs, for buildings and facilities projects and
selected extension programs.
The Administration continues to believe that the NRI
Competitive Grants Program provides the most effective
mechanism for eliciting and supporting the most meritorious
science that's being conducted by our university scientists.
The Economic Research Service's request is $54 million.
With an increasingly market oriented agricultural sector the
need for economic analysis to understand the implications of
new developments and technology, policy and trade is critical
for both public and private sector decision makers. The fiscal
year 1998 budget request provides funds to secure critical data
that is important to enable us to perform that analysis.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service requests $120
million; an increase of $20 million largely for funding the
peak year of the Census of Agriculture. Responsibility for the
Census of Agriculture was transferred from the Department to
Commerce to NASS on October 1, 1996. NASS is conducting the
Census under the Agency's broad authority to conduct
agricultural surveys. And, sir, we will be seeking specific
authorizing legislation to clarify our authorities with respect
to the Census of Agriculture. I'd like to ask your assistance
and support for swift passage of that legislation.
In addition to the Census, our budget request focuses on
some high priority Administration initiatives. These include
food safety, human nutrition, germplasm collection and
preservation, integrated pest management, emerging infectious
diseases--which also include exotic pests--and the Children,
Youth, and Families At-Risk Program. This last increase will
restore funding for the Children, Youth, and Families At-Risk
Program to its 1995 level and provides an additional $1.7
million to be targeted to the Colleges of 1890 that are now
eligible to receive Smith-Lever 3d funding directly.
I mentioned earlier the slight decrease in the collective
REE Agency budgets. This is due largely to reductions in the
Agricultural Research Service and the CSREES budgets for
building and modernization of research facilities.
The funding level for buildings and facilities reflects a
total decrease of $72 million; $10 million of this is in the
ARS budget and $62 million of this decrease is in CSREES. Given
the constraints in this budget and the future costs that are
associated with maintenance of new facilities, we believe it's
more important to put funds into research and education than
into bricks and mortar.
In closing, I'd like to express my interest in working with
you and with this subcommittee as we continue to develop the
strategic plans and the annual performance plans that are
required by the Government Performance and Results Act.
I thank you for the opportunity to present the Research,
Education and Economics budget request. My colleagues and I at
this point will be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
[Clerk's note.--Dr. Woteki's written testimony appears on
pages 533 through 547. Dr. Knipling's written testimony appears
on pages 549 through 563. Dr. Robinson's written testimony
appears on pages 564 through 583. Dr. Offutt's written
testimony appears on pages 584 through 596. Mr. Bay's written
testimony appears on pages 597 through 608. Dr. Woteki's, Dr.
Horn's, Dr. Knipling's, Dr. Robinson's, Dr. Offutt's, and Mr.
Bay's biographical sketches appears on pages 527 through 532.
The Agricultural Research Service's budget justification
appears on pages 609 through 706. The Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service's budget
justification appears on pages 707 through 860. The Economic
Research Services budget justification appears on pages 861
through 885. The National Agricultural Statistics Service's
budget justification appears on pages 886 through 918.]
Mr. Skeen. Thank you very much, Dr. Woteki. I think that
was a good summarization of where we stand. You can tell this
is kind of becoming a war between the budget of the Congress
and the budget of the Administration. Let's see if we can't
sift through this thing and come out with something that's
whole.
Research Related to Cloning
Let's start with the question of the hour and that has to
be what is USDA spending on cloning research? My Scottish
ancestors have already done this with sheep. And I wondered
what was going on. What kind of research are you doing related
to animal cloning, if any?
Dr. Woteki. We are doing related research.
Mr. Skeen. I'm glad the clones are also related.
Dr. Woteki. That's right. They are related to each other.
We are not doing research that is exactly of the sort that's
gotten all of the press attention over the last week or so, in
that we have no research underway that is attempting to take a
cell from an adult or a mature animal and then to produce
clones of that animal.
We have in the past, though, and continue to do research
that involves animal embryos and the cloning of those;
essentially making twins or triplets from an embryo. We also
have research in areas, as I said, that are related that
involve understanding the genetics of livestock. We are
conducting research in the mapping of the genome of cattle,
pigs, and sheep. We are also conducting research that involves
the insertion of genes from one animal or even a different
species into an animal.
Mr. Skeen. A little gene engineering.
Dr. Woteki. Exactly. It is called transgenics.
Mr. Skeen. Transgenics. It's called what?
Dr. Woteki. Transgenic research.
Mr. Skeen. Transgenic research. Go ahead.
Dr. Woteki. Well, that is an overview of the type of
research that's being done. At this point I can't give you an
exact dollar figure. We did receive a request this morning from
the Congressional Research Service asking us to provide that
information.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. What's the objective of cloning? What
are the up-sides or the profit motivation of it, if there is
any, to gain?
Dr. Woteki. There are two reasons for doing this kind of
research. One is just from a very fundamental perspective to
understand the life process. What makes the genes of a cell
turn on and go from a single cell, a fertilized cell, to an
entire animal. And then what turns off some of those genes in
the process.
So, improving on basic understanding of what makes our
genomes function the way they do is one of the intents of this
kind of research. That will have applications both with respect
to agriculture and with respect to human health.
It will help us to understand what causes a cell to become
a cancer cell and perhaps to develop some better treatments for
it. It will also give us some understanding of the processes of
aging; what makes our cells replicate so many times and then
stop replicating.
So, there are some questions on the basic understanding of
life processes that will be answered by this kind of research.
And then there are a lot of different applications, both with
respect to human health and also with respect to agriculture.
Agricultural applications include things like the genetic
improvement of livestock; our ability to produce leaner animals
that are more conducive to a health promoting diet; our ability
to use those animals to produce products that are of importance
to us.
There are some experiments, for instance, using again this
transgenics approach so that milk producing animals can be used
to produce drugs, that are protein in nature, in their milk.
So, there are some practical applications.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Dr. Woteki. I wasn't being capricious
with it because I think what we're trying to do is further our
knowledge of just what life is all about. The genetic side of
the thing is always of great interest. And we're making great
progress. I hope that somewhere in that pile of information we
do something that betters our chances for a longer life with
fewer digression factors built into it. So, I'm very pleased
that it's taking some real notice.
Of course the news media has been having a hay day with the
thing. So, I think we ought to get it down to what are the
practicalities of it. That's what research is all about.
REE Research Serving Other Agencies
When I look at the budgets of the Department of Agriculture
and I see research funding in lots of places, there is money
for research in the Food Safety and Inspection Service, Food
and Consumer Service, the Foreign Agricultural Service and
others. And it sure seems like everyone has a handle on what's
going on.
What's wrong with taking all of the funds in USDA that is
related to research and putting them in one place?
Dr. Woteki. Well, our reorganization went a long way
towards accomplishing that end. Forest Service----
Mr. Skeen. Excuse me. How far?
Dr. Woteki. Well, to my mind, the major research
organization that is not currently within the Research,
Education and Economics area is the Forest Service research.
The research that's done within FSIS and Food and Consumer
Service is research that's a much more applied and evaluation
type of research that's very close to the programmatic needs of
those Agencies.
For both of them we do more fundamental kinds of research
to meet their needs for new technologies, for detection in the
case of FSIS, and also for providing information to Food and
Consumer Service about dietary intake patterns.
Mr. Skeen. Well, it seems like good administration. On a
related issue, we hear from the USDA agencies that they don't
get what they need from the research side of USDA. And that
they imply ARS does what it wants and does not provide what the
Agency needs.
However, you, I think, have made the explanation that we're
coordinating those needs. Is that precisely the management
effort and the goal of the management effort?
Dr. Woteki. Most definitely, it's the goal of the
management effort. And I think the opinion that you're
reflecting is perhaps an oversimplification of some people's
complaints about responsiveness to their needs. Certainly, with
respect to food safety and also with Food and Consumer Services
we have processes where we consult with them as to what their
research needs are going to be for the coming year.
We work closely with them to identify what specific
projects will meet those needs. And then, as I said, we meet
with them annually to assess progress on them. Also, as a part
of this budget request, we are including two requests that are
closely related to both of these areas as well: a food safety
research that totals $8 million, and has been very closely
coordinated with both FSIS, FDA, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, as far as the determination of the
priorities that will meet their needs.
And in the nutrition initiative is a request for $6 million
of the $12 million for funding our survey of dietary intake
that is also something that is of enormous use for program
planning purposes to Food and Consumer Services.
Mr. Skeen. So, in effect, you have communication with the
agency about specifically what their needs are and the reasons
for what you're doing with it. So, there is a communication
link going on there. They're not being ignored.
Dr. Woteki. Most definitely, there is a communication link.
Mr. Skeen. I appreciate that response. And I'm going to end
my questioning here for the time being and yield to Mr.
Nethercutt because he has another committee that he must appear
before, with the advice and consent of the Minority. Mr.
Nethercutt.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry to jump
ahead.
Mr. Skeen. Ms. DeLauro, yielded. Thank you both very much.
Go ahead.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, sir. Welcome, Ladies and
Gentlemen. I do have a hearing to Chair at 1:30 p.m. So, I'll
rush through these questions as best I can.
Dr. Woteki, I notice that the President seems to come out
regularly with new initiatives, food safety and others, and to
great fan fair and publicity and so on. My concern is as a
person who comes from the West, and the Fifth District of
Washington is very rich farm country in our Nation and in our
State.
Supporting Basic Research
My concern is that we're somehow in a time of tight budgets
focusing more on initiatives than we are basic research which I
very, very strongly support and I believe it should be a
priority of the entire Department of Agriculture to look at
basic research that helps farmers on the ground; disease
resistance and so on.
I'd be interested in knowing whether you agree that perhaps
the initiative approach is going to have a detrimental effect
on basic research as it relates to farmers. If you don't or if
you do, please state why.
Dr. Woteki. Well, I guess I disagree that the initiatives
that we've proposed in this budget are going to take away
funding from basic research. We have done an analysis of our
research and education portfolio. It indicates that about a
third of the funding to the four agencies that are represented
here is in basic research. About a quarter of it is in applied
research. About 15 percent in developmental research. And the
remainder of our budget, which is about another quarter of it,
is in the extension, outreach, information, and higher
education area.
I've gone all across the country asking people in
agriculture, people in Land Grant Universities--whether they're
researchers, educators or administrators--as well as people
representing the different commodity interests what they think
about that balance in the portfolio. And most of them have said
it's about right.
So, the initiatives that we're proposing in the budget
array roughly in the same way across those priorities. I don't
think that they're taking away from the basic research.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, let me give you an example of where I
think they are taking away from basic research, and that is as
it relates to my state. In ARS' analysis of all the country and
the stations that exist, two are being eliminated; one of which
is in Prosser, Washington, not my district, but affects our
farmers in our state and in our region. Pea and lentil research
is extremely important for the commodities that exist there.
Potato research is important at the Prosser station. But
yet somehow someone felt it prudent to eliminate it. And the
Secretary, in all fairness, has said that he'd take a look at
it. And I appreciate that. Canada is spending I think $12
million on just pea and lentil research alone. And they're a
competitor of ours. I'm just wondering how that can be
justified?
Dr. Woteki. Let me first of all provide you some
information about how we went about making that decision. And
then I'm going to ask Dr. Knipling and Dr. Horn if they would
like to address specifically the pea and lentil research
question.
When one sets priorities like this, it's not an easy job to
do. It's very hard, especially given the importance of
agriculture to our economy, in general, and specific state
economics, in specific.
But in making the decisions that we made about the project
terminations and also about the closures of sites, Mandan,
North Dakota; Prosser, Washington, the one in which you have an
interest; and the two work sites in Brawley, California, and
Orono, Maine. We essentially went to the area directors and the
national program staff within the Agriculture Research Service.
This is essentially the ARS senior management team. They are
scientists by training. We asked them to use the criteria that
they have used similarly in the past in making these decisions.
The criteria have included questions about the relevance of
the work that's being done. How relevant is the project to the
research priorities of the agency? The second criterion has to
do with capacity. Do we have the resources to conduct the
research? And thirdly, what will be the overall impact of the
research. What will be the effect of this research on American
agriculture?
They reviewed every project within the portfolio against
those criteria and then ranked them. And then after they had
done their ranking, the Administrator reviewed their
recommendations and made some final decisions about which of
those in the lowest tier, would be the ones that would be
terminated and then recommended those to me.
So, my sense of the process that was used was that it was a
credible process. And it was based on strong criteria.
Mr. Nethercutt. Are you saying there is pea and lentil
research done elsewhere that would apply or be available?
Dr. Woteki. I'm going to ask Dr. Knipling and Dr. Horn to
respond specifically on pea and lentil.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you; and potato research as well.
Dr. Knipling. With respect to the pea and lentil research,
that project is actually being retained and consolidated at
Pullman, Washington. There were six projects at Prosser. And
according to the process that Dr. Woteki described, four of
them would be terminated and the resources reallocated to other
research locations.
But two projects, the vegetable project is scheduled for
retention, and consolidation with Pullman. The potato germplasm
is also scheduled for retention and consolidated either at
Aberdeen, Idaho or Corvallis, Oregon, where we already do
similar research.
Mr. Nethercutt. I appreciate that. I know my time is short.
I'll just say, I think we need to be careful as we look at
terminating research stations and researchers. My sense is
we're low on researchers and trying to generate people to get
into the research business in agriculture, and in all phases of
it and keep them, rather than to lose them this year and try to
get them back the next. It is very tough to sustain that
research level. So, that's my concern; less parochial and more,
honestly, less parochial, and more system concern. So, perhaps
we can have a later discussion about this issue and go from
there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence and for
letting me step ahead.
Mr. Skeen. Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
want to say thank you to all of the witnesses that are here
today; and especially to you, Madam Secretary, for your
testimony. And let me just say that there is outstanding
research that's been performed by the Department of
Agriculture.
Often times, that's been in conjunction with universities
and the state entities. And I think it really has helped to
ensure the safety and abundance of our agricultural products,
both here and around the world. I just might add that my
hometown of New Haven, Connecticut can boast that it is the
site of the nation's first agricultural experiment station.
They do incredible research there with respect to
pesticides; water and soil; taxol research; how we combat the
gypsy moth; a whole variety of those efforts, and as I say, do
an outstanding job.
Also, exciting biotechnology efforts that are going on at
the University of Connecticut hold wonderful research promise,
but also development potential as well. Thank you for what
you're doing. I look forward to those kinds of successful
partnerships in the future. Let me mention a couple of areas
I'm concerned about.
food safety initiative
We have heard lots of testimony on the subcommittee in
support of the President's Food Safety Initiative. Witnesses
have emphasized that the improved food safety system,
particularly the HACCP system will be based on good science.
As the research arm of the Agriculture Department, can you
describe how the Food Safety Initiative will take advantage of
science; and specifically how the research improvements will be
translated into concrete food safety improvements?
Dr. Woteki. What we're proposing is that within the
research part of the Food Safety Initiative the funds will be
used within the Agricultural Research Service. Our request is
for $4 million that will be specifically targeted to a half
dozen micro-organisms that currently pose the greatest threats
to our food supply.
The focus of the research on those half dozen organisms
will be on better identification and control methods, both pre-
harvest and post-harvest. We view that as leading directly into
efforts, both on the part of government agencies that are
responsible for regulating the food system's methods of
detection, as well as those in private enterprise who want to
also ensure that the greatest amount of protection is built
into their processing.
The other $4 million request is in the CSREES budget; $2
million of which is for extension education activities related
to food safety and $2 million is for a competitive special
research grant in support of those education efforts.
It's clear that as the various studies are done of public
knowledge of food safety, both in the home as well as among
those who've got direct responsibilities for food preparation,
that there is a lot that we could do to improve the practices.
And the education initiative is going to have those dual
audiences as its targets.
So, I see that what we're requesting under this initiative
is going to tie very tightly into the regulatory, as well as
production systems, and also into the education programs.
Ms. DeLauro. Is it your sense that in terms of the
implementation of what we find out about food safety programs,
these plans will get immediate attention?
I happen to be fixated on the food safety issue. I think
that if you take your kids to McDonald's or wherever, people
should have a sense of security about what they're eating and
what they're drinking. What I want to be assured of is that the
work you are doing in the research end of this is somehow
immediately translatable to the general public obviously, but
also internally within the government.
Do we have the opportunity to take a look at what's being
done because our job is to ensure that the public is safe when
they're eating and drinking? Your internal mechanisms are such
that we can take advantage of them?
Dr. Woteki. Yes, I understand the nature of your request.
You want to make sure that our new findings are going to be
immediately translated into applications.
Ms. DeLauro. Yes.
Dr. Woteki. And we will do everything to make sure that
this happens.
human nutrition initiative
Ms. DeLauro. Please. Yes. That's important. You also in
your testimony mentioned that the Department's Human Nutrition
Initiative will undertake a new effort to examine how diet
affects cognitive development in children. Ensuring that our
children start off on the right foot is essential.
Lots of work is being done in the area of when our
youngsters learn; how quickly they progress from zero to three;
all of these kinds of things. And your work may be a terrific
complement to these ongoing studies of development. Can you
tell us what has led your research in this direction and what
you might expect to find?
Dr. Woteki. Well, there are several different sources of
this initiative. It's roots probably trace back to a major
study that was done by the Food and Nutrition Board at the
Institute of Medicine. The Board essentially reviewed what we
know about human nutrition and recommended that there were some
very promising pathways of research that needed some additional
funding.
So, that report was certainly taken into account by the
directors of the half dozen nutrition research centers within
ARS as they went about developing their initiative. There is,
as you've said, a lot of interest broadly in the health
community, in the health of our children.
A lot of attention has been given by a number of groups
focusing on what happens in the early years that affects
children's learning ability. Clearly diet is one of those very
important variables.
It's been recommended by a number of different
organizations that this research should be part of those
broader studies of how we prepare our children best to learn.
So, it has a lot of different roots.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several
different questions. On the issue of children, I'd like to talk
a little bit about the survey that's called for by the Food
Quality Protection Act. There is some concern that USDA and EPA
haven't worked this closely together in the past as perhaps
they could have or should have.
In order to get this study done and done right, have there
been discussions between USDA and EPA regarding survey methods
and how the data will be used in order to make sure that there
is no duplication?
Dr. Woteki. I'm assuming that you're referring to the food
intake survey for children?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, for children.
Dr. Woteki. We've certainly had ongoing discussions with
EPA about their needs for this information. We also have more
recently established a liaison position with the EPA. Dr. Dick
Parry is going to be working in that role so that we will have
a focal point on our side for those discussions to take place.
Clearly, we see that there is a need for a better
understanding of what children need, not only to meet the
requirements of EPA, but also more broadly the mandate that we
have within the Department. So, ARS is proceeding in planning
about how to go about designing the survey. And if you'd like
some additional information on it, I will ask Dr. Knipling to
provide you with it.
Mr. Walsh. That's okay. I just wanted to make sure that we
get an accurate survey, certainly, and that its useful to EPA
because they're making some very important decisions on what
pesticides, old and new, can be used. And rightly so, it's an
important question.
I think that was a major consideration, the passage of that
bill last year. I think it helped us all to support the bill
knowing that this analysis would be done. As I understand it,
it will take some time to have that study completed. It's a 36-
month study.
EPA is going to be making decisions on pesticides based on the
results of that study. But in the meantime, what will they do?
They're not going to wait three years to start okaying or
recertifying pesticides. What will they do?
Dr. Woteki. Well, they have some alternative sources of
information about children's dietary patterns and about dietary
patterns broadly in the population. The National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey that was conducted from 1988
through 1994 provides them with some information. In addition,
they have historical data upon which they've been relying so
far.
Mr. Walsh. But is it a feeling that this new survey will
give them better data than what they're using now?
Dr. Woteki. Yes. They will have a larger number of
observations on children. And that's important.
Dr. Horn. You should know also that we are looking for ways
to expedite this process; perhaps through identification of
funds that could be redirected within the Department which we
have not identified yet; perhaps amending an existing contract
to begin this earlier.
The analysis that's been done suggests that something
between eight and 12 months could be saved that way. We're
working very closely on the protocols with EPA to make sure
they will be adequate.
golden nematode Research
Mr. Walsh. Good. On the specific research relating to the
Golden Nematode in New York--there's been an ongoing program to
identify the soil where this is located in order to prevent it
from spreading to other states.
And there is some real concern that as the amount of money
that's allocated to deal with the Golden Nematode is reduced,
there is a real concern in the New York agriculture industry,
that there is a perception that we aren't doing our job. My
worry is that other states may begin to ban our products which
would cause just havoc in New York.
In New York, as you know, we grow a lot of different and
varying crops that we export to other states and to other
nations. Can you give me any sense of assurance that the money
that you've requested is enough to deal with this problem? Last
year it was I believe $444,000 and you've asked for less than
that. The estimates are that we need a lot more.
Dr. Woteki. I'd like Dr. Horn to reply and then Dr.
Knipling.
Dr. Horn. We're aware of this problem which was discovered
years ago on Long Island. And the details of it, I'm going to
defer to Dr. Knipling. But clearly it is one of the most
serious pests. On the other hand, we have done a considerable
amount of work that has taught us how to control the disease.
And I think our sense is that the funding for this is more
or less adequate in the context of the budgetary environment
we're working with. However, let me defer for the details to
Dr. Knipling.
Dr. Knipling. I would only add that we have not reduced any
funding for that program. It has been stable over several
years. If there is any problem, it's just the continuing
erosion of purchasing power. That work is done at Ithaca, New
York, by Dr. Bill Brodie.
We are making a few other changes within that research unit
unrelated to the potato nematode work that actually may lend
some opportunities for strengthening the activity within the
program. It's a multiple commodity, multiple problem oriented
research program. But the portion on Golden Nematode has not
diminished in the sense of a project termination.
Mr. Walsh. So, it's your feeling that the program is
adequate and that there is no need for concern among other
states that this could spread?
Dr. Knipling. I think that's true in terms of this concern
from other states. We've actually made considerable progress in
that program. It's one of the flag ship activities to actually
contain the problem.
duplication of research
Mr. Walsh. Okay. The other dilemma we have is with regard
to our budget. The fact is that our subcommittee has $14.3
billion in requests for discretionary spending and will wind up
with probably less than $13 billion available to spend.
We're going to ask everybody the hard questions. But is
there any way that research duplication can be eliminated? Are
there any areas where consolidation can be done? I realize it's
a difficult question especially given Mr. Nethercutt's
question. What is being done or what can be done to eliminate
duplication and consolidate?
Dr. Woteki. Well, among the things that I think we need to
consider is that the USDA research and education budgets have
been fairly flat for quite a number of years. So, we have made
an enormous effort over the past few years to reduce
duplication wherever it existed. Also, we have introduced as
many administrative efficiencies as possible in managing both
the intramural programs, as well as the extramural programs.
Given the budget trajectory that's planned for the out
years, it doesn't look like there is going to be much relief in
sight from that situation. And I think that we all need to work
very much together to try to identify what is going to be the
best pathway to take in this kind of a situation.
I think we're going to have to continue to do some
consolidation of our intramural research facilities, making
sure that the high priority research that's done is still going
to be continued but getting some additional administrative
savings out of being able to consolidate worksites.
And I think that clearly if there is some remaining
duplication of effort that we need to certainly pay attention
to them. If you're aware of some that we are not yet aware of,
I'd certainly like to know about that. But my sense is that
we've really worked very hard over the last several years to
eliminate the duplication that existed, and I don't think there
was that much to begin with. In this process we have tried to
gain as many administrative efficiencies as possible.
APPLE FIRE BLIGHT
Mr. Walsh. That's a fair answer. Let me just ask one last
question, if any of you would care to comment. In the last
several years, we've appropriated some funds for apple fire
blight, which affects the apple crop in Michigan and in New
York, and I guess to a lesser extent elsewhere.
And we have also allocated some funds for grape and wine
research which obviously benefits New York, California, and
other wine growing regions. Could any of you comment on either
of those programs and how they're working? What sort of work is
being done?
Dr. Woteki. Dr. Knipling.
Dr. Knipling. Yes. Several years ago this committee
provided some funding for an apple consortium. We placed that
money at Kearneysville, West Virginia; our Appalachian Fruit
Laboratory. In turn, they've been supporting cooperative work
in New York, Michigan and California on the apple issues. They
hadn't been totally restricted to the apple blight, but various
disease and quality problems of the apple.
GRAPE AND WINE RESEARCH
Regarding the grape and wine research, we have a stable
program there also. In terms of base resources within ARS, we
have $2.4 million in grape research. Much of that is located in
California locations, but some at our Geneva, New York location
as well.
Mr. Walsh. Can you comment on this insect that has affected
the root stocks of grapes?
Dr. Knipling. It was probably the phylloxera which is a
root insect. And yes, we've been working on that at Fresno and
at Davis, California. We're working with the industry in trying
to develop resistance root stocks and making some good
progress.
Mr. Walsh. Has that approach been effective?
Dr. Knipling. Yes. We feel that's the most promising
approach.
Dr. Woteki. I think Dr. Robinson would also like to add to
that.
Dr. Robinson. CSREES funding also provides an additional
avenue for viticulture research. In fiscal year 1996 and 1997
Congress appropriated, under special research grant funding,
monies to help form an operative and effective consortium that
deals with issues of grape production and viticulture.
We have been working primarily with California and New York
to initiate the project; the idea to develop a consortium that
shares information, helps set priorities, identifies problems
that are emerging and helps build partnerships between Land
Grant Universities, USDA and industry groups in order to
address those problems. My sense is that this project has been
a very successful one.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Latham.
RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to have to
leave here very shortly for another hearing at 2:00 p.m. First
of all, just to let you know there is no one who is more
supportive of basic agricultural research than I am. And it is
absolutely critical for the long-term success in agriculture.
I will have to tell you that I have real concern that some
of the new initiatives may be diluting the emphasis you have
toward basic research. I think that is the vital role that you
have today. But having said that, what criteria or guiding
rationale did the Administration use when making the decision
about which ARS buildings and facilities to fund this time?
Dr. Woteki. We used three criteria. First, we evaluated all
of the projects within the ARS portfolio. We used the same
three criteria in evaluating every project. One was its
relevance. How relevant is the project to the research
priorities of the Agency? Secondly, capacity. Do we have the
resources to conduct the research? And thirdly, the impact.
What will be the affect of this research on American
agriculture? All of the projects within ARS were ranked. And
then a decision was made about the lowest tier of those. And
then from that, decisions were made about which sites to close.
IOWA STATE
Mr. Latham. I'm going to be very brief here. What's ARS'
position on assuming operation of the swine research facility
at Iowa State when it's completed?
Dr. Woteki. Well, at this point as I understand it, the
facility is still supposed to be deeded to Iowa State
University.
Mr. Latham. Right. And I think they want ARS to take
control of it. Do you have a position on that?
Dr. Woteki. Well, I think there are a variety of
arrangements under consideration, recognizing who is going to
ultimately hold the deed is still apparently in question. Among
the things that we are talking about is a partnership with the
State, the University, and the industry in support of research
that's conducted there, with ARS being one of the partners.
That's a more innovative type of approach towards the
funding of the work that will be done there. And certainly at
the other end of the spectrum, if indeed the facility
ultimately ends up in ARS' hands, would be full funding of a
research program there. There is a spectrum of ways that it
could be dealt with that are under consideration.
Mr. Latham. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering
when you're talking about clones, you know, at Iowa State, we
have the cyclones. And we also refer to them as the clones. I
hope that was not a direct reference to anyone at Iowa State.
I'm sure the news of the cloning of sheep had a great impact on
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence.
ARS RESEARCH PROJECTS
Mr. Skeen. If the gentleman yields, I'd like to ask some
questions that's pertinent to what you just got through talking
about. Who was it that made the decision to eliminate the ARS
research projects? Was it ARS, OMB, the Department or who? Who
actually made the decision?
Dr. Woteki. As I explained to you, the ARS program staff
and senior management came up with a set of recommendations.
Mr. Skeen. They made the recommendations.
Dr. Woteki. Yes. They made the recommendations. Those were
reviewed and accepted.
Mr. Skeen. I want to be clear about how the decision was
made. Thank you very much, Dr. Woteki.
Dr. Woteki. Certainly.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Fazio.
Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I wasn't here
to hear all of the introductory remarks. I've done an Evelyn
Wood course through a couple of those statements that were
submitted to us to see if I could focus on a few things that I
don't think were mentioned.
WORLD TRADE
I was particularly interested in having you address the
World Trade Organization now in existence. Any reference you
may have made to research in the phytosanitary area where
increasingly we seem to think that our future in world trade,
certainly in specialty crop agriculture, is going to be
sustaining our real commitment to science and not to trade
restraints.
If Ms. Kaptur were here, you would have heard a good deal
about the science behind the decision on the avocado issue. And
we could cite many on both sides of U.S. foreign trade
relations. Is there something that the Department is doing
under your purview that would help us at some point attain a
level playing field out there in the future between countries
that sometimes discriminate against imports based on what we
think are unscientific criteria?
Dr. Woteki. You've probably heard the Secretary wax
eloquent on the position that he has taken very strongly that
science has got to be the basis for our regulatory approach and
that any artificial trade barriers that are placed on
agricultural products based on phytosanitary regulations need
to be addressed from a scientific basis.
We have a variety of research projects underway that
address those concerns. And in addition to those research
projects that we could go over with you in more detail, but
probably should be done off-line, the Economic Research Service
has put together an inventory of sanitary and phytosanitary
barriers, globally. Dr. Offutt could give you a little bit of
an overview of that effort.
Mr. Fazio. Great.
Dr. Offutt. What the Economic Research Service tried to do
in collaboration with ARS, with APHIS, with the Foreign
Agricultural Service, with the trade representatives was to
take a first look at an inventory. How big is the problem
today? And we did that and it's not the most scientific method,
but I think it's the common sense place to start.
We started by asking all of the Foreign Agricultural
Service attaches around the world what they perceived as trade
barriers in the country in which they worked. We took their
answers and went back to ARS and APHIS and said, well, number
one, how many of these would have counterparts in US trade
regulation and supposed them to be science based. And then we
asked whether they felt that there was legitimate science basis
for countries having the trade restrictions that they did.
As I said, this approach is more common sense than science,
but what it leads us to is an early estimate that there are
several billion dollars outstanding that we think may represent
trade which is forgone because of barriers. That's against $60
billion worth of U.S. exports.
So, that might lead one to say that's not the biggest
problem right now. However, as global trade expands, that's the
place to be vigilant. So, the work that goes on from here I
think will be to try to not only to square the science with
actual experience but to determine whether there are systems we
can use to anticipate these barriers. Once you get into a
dispute you already have a problem. Many different agencies may
be involved in that analysis. But we think we've made a good
start.
Mr. Fazio. I appreciate that. And I think the approach is a
good one too. Let's go to the practical examples of where we
have a problem instead of just worrying about where we
theoretically might down the road. Could you submit that for
the record? I think we'd all be interested in seeing where
those problems have been identified. Is that workable?
Dr. Woteki. Yes. I believe we're looking at a Departmental
publication that is close to being on the street. We will
certainly see that you get one as soon as it is published.
Mr. Fazio. Great. I have a feeling that you will find a lot
of specialty crop agriculture listed. So, while it may not be
billions and billions of dollars in the context of our total
trade, it can be absolutely essential, perhaps life or death,
for some crops. I hope we can direct our research and efforts
to those areas that we obviously see coming down the track that
are going to really impact, not only on some crops, but on some
regions of the country.
nutrition centers
I wanted to ask a question about the nutrition programs.
You're very proud of your work at Beltsville, Baylor, and Grand
Forks, North Dakota. I know that you are very, very proud of
the work that's done at Tufts in Massachusetts, and also at the
Presidio.
There, we are about to see a federal hospital, Letterman
Army Hospital, close. We're about to see the Presidio go to a
new form of national park. And the Department has made a
decision to move their western nutrition center to UC Davis,
which I happen to have some interest in; similar to Mr. Walsh's
interest in Cornell. We represent them.
I wondered if you could indicate to me why there wasn't any
funding in this year's budget to begin the transfer of that
facility, given the fact that it's time at the Presidio is
obviously limited?
Dr. Woteki. Before I answer the specific of why, let me
assure you that we have got a very great interest in seeing
that the Western Human Nutrition Research Center has a good
home so they can continue to do the excellent research that
they are noted for.
And I have talked on several occasions with Dr. Janet King,
the Director of that Center, about how best to effect that
move. So, it certainly is something that I'm intensely
interested in seeing happen.
There are two things though that have happened this year
that have made it impossible for us to include as a part of our
request, new funds for that center. One of them was just the
enormous constraints under which this budget was being put
together. And also, the decision we made, that it was more
important to put the funds into the research and education
programs than into new buildings in this year. Secondly, the
Farm Bill that was passed last year has a requirement that we
have a task force of outside experts conduct a review of
Federally funded agriculture facilities.
It's called a Strategic Planning Task Force for Agriculture
Research Facilities. That task force is going to be named. The
secretary signed off on it this morning. So, we're just
notifying people and getting ready to put out the press
release. And they will have two years in which to review all of
our agriculture research facilities and to make some
recommendations about the next ten years as to new construction
and new consolidations and perhaps some closure of sites.
So, given that this task force was also going to be
beginning its work in the requests that we put in for new
facility in ARC, included those that were of highest priority
and had been in that situation for quite some time. So, the
Parlier, California Laboratory, for instance, is on that list.
human nutrition at little rock, arkansas
Mr. Fazio. I was looking at the human nutrition budget
under ARS. I noticed there is a plus up for $12 million and
we've got $6 million for the headquarters, and then divide it
into equal parts; $6 million additional. In additional to
Beltsville and the four nutrition centers I mentioned, there is
one for Little Rock, Arkansas.
Since Mr. Dickey isn't here at the moment, I thought I
might ask what is the program the Department is supporting in
Little Rock, Arkansas. It didn't seem to me to be included
traditionally among the centers that I've mentioned that USDA
is so proud of in terms of nutrition research.
Dr. Woteki. The Arkansas facility is a newcomer to the
nutrition centers within the Agriculture Portfolio. It actually
is one of the nutrition centers that I have not yet visited.
So, I look forward to visiting the site and getting to talk
with the scientists and learn more about their research
program.
The research focus at that center is also on child
nutrition and understanding how nutrition in the early
childhood years affects long-term health. I could also ask Dr.
Knipling, if you'd like, for some additional information on
that subject.
Mr. Fazio. Just became an official USDA nutrition center?
Dr. Woteki. Yes.
Mr. Fazio. Is that no longer a question of Congressional
add-on? It's now a designated location. Is that correct?
Dr. Woteki. We consider it on one of our human nutrition
centers yes.
Mr. Fazio. I see, good. Additional testimony on that? I'd
be interested for the record.
Dr. Woteki. Dr. Horn.
Dr. Horn. I might be able to add to this. We have virtually
every configuration in carrying out our program, who owns the
building, who owns the program, where the scientists are,
whether we operate under a memorandum of understanding or a
contract, and so forth.
This particular program came into being because of the
intense interest of the Arkansas Childrens Hospital in brain
development and cognitive development of children and how diet
affects neural development and how it affects nutritional
imprinting and programming. We did not have that activity as a
part of our National Human Nutrition Initiative.
So, that's the principal reason they have become a center
and that's what they have brought to the table. They are asking
how does nutrition influence cognitive and emotional
development in performance. They're also really world renowned
as a pediatric hospital. And I think they're about fourth in
size now of children's hospitals, nationally. And they have
quite a bit of other activity that's not directly nutrition
related that supports the program as a whole. So, they are
significant contributors. They have also not asked for
facilities and structures. They've achieved that in other ways.
And so, in an academic and in a scientific sense, they're
bringing a great deal to the table.
food intake survey
Mr. Fazio. Will each of these facilities be engaged in work
under the children's study that Mr. Walsh referenced earlier as
a part of the implementation of the Food Quality Protection
Act?
Dr. Woteki. The survey itself will be done at the Human
Nutrition Center at Beltsville.
Mr. Fazio. In addition to the Children's Hospital in Little
Rock, what other nutrition centers will be working with you and
EPA to complete that work? Could you tell me?
Dr. Woteki. Sure.
Dr. Horn. This actually is a survey that's normally
contracted out. And in fact if we are able to supplement the
existing contract and save the six to eight months or whatever,
it will go to a company called Westat. The protocols and the
questions are generated jointly. And the centers do provide
input into that.
But it's a contract that's managed for administrative
convenience through the Beltsville Agricultural Research
Center. Later on, in the analytical process, the other centers
become directly involved in looking at the data.
Mr. Fazio. Would that be true of Little Rock as well?
Dr. Horn. Yes.
Mr. Fazio. So, I misspoke. It really won't be involved in
the up-front analysis, the children's study that we've
referenced here.
Dr. Horn. The Little Rock Center will not be involved in
the survey. But there are many other children's studies,
physiological in nature, that both Baylor and Little Rock will
emphasize. They are different, but they are complementary.
Mr. Fazio. Those are the two that will be working on
children's related matters.
Dr. Woteki. Yes.
Dr. Horn. It's almost impossible to eliminate any center
because, for instance, Tufts is looking at the effect of early
life nutrition on old age problems. And the Grand Forks unit is
looking at the effects of trace elements on the entire life
cycle. So, it's almost impossible to eliminate any center
entirely, but the principal activity would be in Arkansas and
in Texas.
integrated pest management
Mr. Fazio. One other question, Mr. Chairman, and I'll hold
on that at least. Integrated pest management is something I'm
very interested in. I notice the Department has quite a
reference here to your program. Where is most of the research
being done on integrated pest management applications?
Dr. Woteki. Generally in two sites. One is within the
Agricultural Research Service at its multiple sites. And the
other is through the Land Grant Universities at their multiple
sites throughout the country. The Integrated Pest Management
Program with its goal of having 75 percent of agricultural land
under IPM practices by the year 2000, essentially mandates that
we be doing this research, applied research, in many different
places throughout the country.
Mr. Fazio. Well, I'm very hopeful that you can attain that
goal. Obviously I think we should be getting production
agriculture committed to IPM based on cost savings if nothing
else. Effectiveness really is the key to getting that kind of
acreage covered.
Again, I worry about specialty crop agriculture as I was a
minute ago where we have less benefit perhaps to be derived by
the manufacturer given the limited number of acres. I'm
wondering if you could, perhaps if not here, then for the
record, indicate to me where most of the specialty crop IPM is
being done.
[The information follows:]
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
specialty crop ipm programs
CSREES programs are supporting speciality crop IPM programs at a
variety of locations across the country, including the University of
California. Agricultural Research Service and University of California
scientist are developing biologically based IPM systems on the Davis
and Riverside campuses, at the Kerny Agricultural Center, and at
several other field stations in California. The same is true in other
states with extensive acreage of high value crops. Our IPM research and
extension education effort matches the needs of growers. This truly a
public-private partnership which addresses the needs of active grower
and industry groups. This partnership has resulted in many successful
IPM efforts for specialty crops. For example, public concerns about the
use of pesticides led California's processed tomato industry to form a
partnership with the University of California to develop and implement
improved pest management methods. The resulting IPM system has been
implemented by about half of the state's processed tomato producers,
resulting in a 40 percent reduction of pesticide use and a $10 per acre
increase in profitability. Recently, the University of California IPM
Program used Smith-Lever 3(d) funds to validate disease forecasting
models on several speciality crops including grapes, pears, tomatoes,
lettuce and strawberries. These models allow producers to reduce
fungicide applications by 25 to 50 percent on those crops, a fact that
is especially significant since fungicides are one of the most targeted
and also one of the most important pesticides used in speciality crop
production. There are also successful specialty crops IPM efforts in
other states. For example, IPM research and education conducted by
Texas A&M University has saved $1.5 billion per year and spared the
environment 17.3 million pounds of insecticides alone. One IPM program
in the Rio Grande Valley for carrots destined for baby food, soup and
frozen foods reduced insecticide use by 66 percent while increasing
individual farmer profits by $22,000. At the same time, 20,000 new jobs
in the state are associated with IPM. IPM research and extension
efforts at Oregon State University have helped growers reduce their
need for miticide applications from three to one per year on twenty
thousand acres of apples, for a savings of $120,000.
Dr. Woteki. We'd be happy to do that.
Mr. Fazio. My sense is it might be in Land Grant
Institutions that are not too far from where I'm located.
Dr. Woteki. We'd be happy to do that.
Mr. Fazio. I thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Bonilla.
special research grants
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to talk a
little more about Special Research Grants and how those are
being cut to further national priorities. We understand that.
I'm interested in learning more about the details regarding how
the decision making process took place in deciding which
projects to eliminate and which ones to keep.
Dr. Woteki. Well, we used a process that we've used in the
past in making hard decisions about setting priorities that
involves the national program staff and the area directors
within the Agricultural Research Service. We asked them to rate
all of the projects in the ARS portfolio against three
criteria: relevance, capacity and impact.
Then, based on that assessment we ask them to rank them.
Your question though had to do with special research grants,
not necessarily with the rankings that we made within ARS.
Essentially, we had the criteria that those grants that were
Congressional earmarks, particularly the ones that dealt with
construction of facilities, were our lowest priority.
And those are essentially zeroed out in our budget request.
Again, the rationale is at this point in time when we are
putting such enormous constraints on our research and education
budget, our sense was that it was more important to put funds
into research and into education than it was into the
construction of new buildings.
Mr. Bonilla. So, would this be strictly limited to
construction then? I'm talking research grants, because there
certainly could be some that are already underway. What happens
to those? Are they just eliminated in the proposal?
Dr. Woteki. Certainly, we gave much lower priority to those
that were earmarked special research grants. I'd like to ask
Dr. Robinson to give you a specific response on the research
grants.
Dr. Robinson. Proceeding from the criteria that Dr. Woteki
laid out, for Special Research Grants priority was given to
those projects that have national or regional impact. Given
that we are trying to balance the expenditure of federal funds
with a very tight budget, it seemed that those were the two
most important criteria to use.
In using those criteria, areas such as integrated pest
management and other related programs, including minor crop
pest management activities that Mr. Fazio referred to a moment
ago, were viewed as being very high priority areas for U.S.
agriculture. They were given a great deal of emphasis in our
budget.
Less emphasis was given to those grants that were primarily
state or local projects. The Department thus began to look at
all of the earmarked grants from the point of view of those
which were of national or regional perspective.
Mr. Bonilla. I have a question now about the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service. Is it your
position, Dr. Woteki, that this funding should not be for any
programs if they're limited in geographical scope. Do programs
have to have a broader perspective than that?
Dr. Woteki. Our emphasis is clearly on those programs that
have a multi-state or regional impact or a national impact.
Those would be the ones on which we will place the highest
priority.
Mr. Bonilla. Would you think that on occasion when
sometimes things seem like they're not going to have a greater
than regional impact that indeed sometimes they wind up having
a broader impact long term? Are you concerned that special
grants and research projects like that might go by the wayside
and something that may have been helpful in the future might be
lost?
Dr. Woteki. I could certainly construct scenarios in which
that would be the case. The problem is we're facing a budget
that is not growing. So, we're having to set some priorities.
Given that we are the federal funder, the federal partner in
the work that's done through the CSREES, we believe that we
should be putting greater priority on those things that are
multi-state, regional, and national in scope.
Mr. Bonilla. As you know, I'm a new Member on this
subcommittee. So, I'm digesting a lot of information as quickly
as I can. So, I look forward to working with you in the future
as we get our numbers together this spring.
I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. I have no questions.
census of agriculture
Mr. Skeen. In that case, we've talked about this before.
There is a pertinent part of this thing that should be
discussed and that's the budget request for the National
Agricultural Statistics Service which includes an increase of
$18.8 million for the Census of Agriculture.
The Census is conducted every five years, and in the past
it has been conducted by the Department of Commerce. We
provided funding in the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture
Appropriations Bill for census work in anticipation that the
authorizing committee would pass legislation needed to transfer
this function from Commerce to the USDA. This didn't happen. Do
you plan to submit some legislation to effect that change?
Dr. Woteki. Yes, we do, sir.
Mr. Skeen. You have some ready to go?
Dr. Woteki. Very close.
Mr. Skeen. Very good.
Dr. Woteki. And we would certainly like any assistance you
can give us in ensuring swift passage of that legislation.
Mr. Skeen. We hope that we have some assistance to offer by
the time it gets here. If there is anything left in this
budget, we'll try to accommodate it.
Mr. Bay. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment.
Mr. Skeen. Yes.
Mr. Bay. This House did pass that bill last year to
authorize the transfer of the Census of Agriculture. It didn't
get through the Senate, but the House did pass House Bill 3665
which brought the authorization bill to the Senate.
Mr. Skeen. We thank you for laying the responsibility for
its failure in the right place. Mr. Walsh.
polyacrylamide
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have been going
through the bag up here of some of these things that you're
working on. There are always amazing things in there. This is
one of the best days on the Hill for me because you come over
with your magic every year. This is amazing. I've never heard
of this before; PAM. Is anybody at the table familiar enough to
talk about this a little bit?
Dr. Woteki. Dr. Knipling, do you want to talk about it.
Mr. Walsh. Just for the sake of the audience who may not
know what this is, let me describe it. I've never heard of it
before. It is polyacrylamide. It is an additive to surface
irrigation. And it reduces soil erosion by 94 percent. It's
astounding. This should be a front page story somewhere. How is
it applied? Do you have to add it to the water source?
Dr. Knipling. Yes. It's a synthetic material,
polyacrylamide, that's actually used in surface irrigation
situations. It's actually dripped into the water flow as it
flows across the soil into the furrows.
Mr. Walsh. How is it applied to the water?
Dr. Knipling. It's dripped in.
Mr. Walsh. So, based on the volume of flow you add at a
certain speed?
Dr. Knipling. It's probably on the order of five pounds per
acre for irrigation. What this material does is bond to the
soil in some way which then retards the detachment of the soil
particles in the water flow.
Mr. Walsh. It says it not only reduces irrigation, but it
increases the infiltration of the water which would seem to me
would get it into the soil faster and thereby reduce the
erosion.
Dr. Knipling. Yes. Maintaining the integrity of the soil
structure helps facilitate the infiltration. I might add that
this work was done in Kimberly, Idaho. But we're doing similar
work at other ARS locations using other types of materials.
This is a synthetic material.
Other materials are derived from agricultural products.
Also, some of the waste material from the coal combustion
activities is also being used. And it has similar affects.
Mr. Walsh. Does it leave a residue?
Dr. Knipling. Yes. I'm sure it's still there. I don't know
the details of that. It's not regarded as harmful or
detrimental to the environment. It's environmentally benign.
Mr. Walsh. I've heard that before. Obviously, you know, if
it left a residue that degraded, that's one thing. If it left a
residue that didn't degrade, sooner or later somebody would
find out what it does. It's not benign. But it is fascinating.
Now, farmers, obviously when you do agriculture indoors and
you feed plants and vegetables and so forth there are little
bits of water with little bits of nutrients in the water. Is
this the sort of application where you're adding this element
to the water to irrigate? Is there also application with the
possibility to add to do your fertilization that way and
pesticide treatment that way?
Dr. Knipling. Yes. That practice is actually much more
advanced. It is often referred to as chemigation. That's a
commercial practice, adding fertilizer nutrients to the water.
This is clearly in it's formative stages. Although it was
adopted on about a quarter of a million acres this past season
or so.
Mr. Walsh. Yes. You know, given all the work that we do and
all of the money that we spend on soil conservation around the
country, to have an innovation that reduces soil erosion by 94
percent is truly remarkable. And I think you're to be
commended. This kind of thing, if people would think about it
for a second, and they probably wouldn't, but if they did
they'd recognize that it would be great for New York State.
We're spending millions of dollars to protect those water
sheds. All of those watersheds provide drinking water for the
different communities in the area; Rochester, Syracuse, the
suburbs and so on. These are also tremendous tourist resorts
for a lot of a reasons.
The biggest problems that those lakes all have is
turbidity. Now, there is not a whole lot you can do about that
because that water is being administered by the Lord. And he is
not going to put any of this stuff in it.
Dr. Woteki. Not so far.
Mr. Walsh. Not so far anyway. Maybe we can work a deal with
Him. But this has real value. And I think this just shows that
there is a little bit of magic in what you do. Whether you do
it at your own shops, or they do it at Davis, or they do it at
Cornell, or they do it at Texas A&M, wherever they do it,
you're to be commended. This is remarkable research. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Nethercutt.
environmental research
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to
follow-up on Jim's remarks about the benefit of the research
that's done, this polyacrylamide and other areas, certainly
touch on environmental issues that affect all of our
agriculture community.
I noticed Dr. Woteki in your testimony you state that
priority research area for the requested increase in the NRI
will be environmentally oriented research. I read an article in
the Smithsonian magazine. Mr. Fazio may have seen this. It was
quite a discussion of methyl bromide as it relates to
strawberries and the consequences of that; that problem in
California especially.
And I'm just wondering, number one, is there a dollar
figure attributed to the priority that you've put on
environmentally oriented research? And really what types of
research can you tell the subcommittee you're engaged in? The
third part of my compound question would be to what extent have
you done any PM10 research or PM2.5 research that affects the
Pacific Northwest; particulate matter concentrations?
We're struggling with that in the air; not only the air
quality component of it, but others as well. So, three
questions, but I apologize. Maybe you can give me a broad range
here.
Dr. Woteki. Those are big ones too.
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes.
Dr. Woteki. The budget for the environmentally oriented
research that we do is about $300 million. It's one of the five
priority areas that we've identified in our strategic planning
activities. Methyl bromide research, particularly to find a
replacement for methyl bromide, is a high priority within ARS.
So, I'd like to ask Dr. Knipling to address that. And I'd
also like both he and Dr. Robinson to talk about the very broad
portfolio of research that we have underway that's
environmentally-orientated. I think while you were out we
fielded some questions about integrated pest management which
is an Administration initiative and is also a part of this
portfolio of environmentally-oriented research. So, they should
touch on that as well.
Mr. Nethercutt. Forgive me if you're duplicating your
testimony. I don't want you to do that. I can check the
transcript.
methyl bromide
Dr. Knipling. I'll comment briefly on the methyl bromide
research and the PM-10 research in ARS. Clearly methyl bromide
has been one of our highest priorities for the past few years.
This committee has supported our work in this area. We have
about $15 million nationwide directed toward that problem. And
about half of that is in the so-called pre-harvest areas which
is where the strawberry concern is.
The other half is in the post-harvest. We're doing quite a
bit of work at several locations in California; specifically on
the strawberry. The emphasis, as I indicated before, for grapes
is more on genetic resistance, developing biocontrols for the
soil pests. That's an alternative to the methyl bromide and so
forth.
We're working very closely with the industry. And also in
your bag there is a newsletter that's a sample of the
communication we're using to provide our customers and the
Congress information on the methyl bromide.
Mr. Nethercutt. Did you see that Smithsonian article by any
chance?
Dr. Knipling. Yes.
Mr. Nethercutt. It was really quite interesting I thought.
Dr. Knipling. Yes. And there were several other articles in
there related to ARS research as well, beyond what we're
talking about.
PM-10 Research
The PM-10 is of course the particulate matter that gets
into the air from various sources. We're working on that in
various locations, including Pullman, Washington; and have
actually made some significant accomplishments in determining
the origin of the dust.
It's almost like DNA fingerprinting if you will; actually
looking at some of the analysis of the dust particles. Actually
there are some biological materials associated with the dust.
And we can determine whether the dust is coming from
agricultural areas, municipal areas, and so forth.
So, that activity looks very promising. It does show that
yes, some of this dust is originating from agriculture as
alleged. But a very large portion of it is coming from other
sources. So, agriculture is certainly not the only culprit.
Similar work is being done in Manhattan, Kansas, and
Lubbock, Texas. And I believe Dr. Robinson might discuss some
activity that's going on in California and in other places.
Environmental Issues
Dr. Robinson. Yes. There is work on PM-10 in California and
in Washington under a Direct Federal Administration Grant. I
might also address one of the issues that you mentioned a
moment ago in your questions; on methyl bromide and the IPM
programs. These were discussed briefly while you were out of
the room.
Within the biological control portion of the IPM program,
which was funded at $2.7 million in 1996 and 1997; and proposed
for an increase to $8.0 million in 1998.
Methyl bromide issues could be addressed through other
special research grants and the NRI which supports research at
the Land Grant Universities. The methyl bromide issue continues
to be a high priority in terms of trying to find an alternative
for that as well as other pesticides that are on a list of
problem issues as far as the environment is concerned.
Additionally, I will address the component of your question
that dealt broadly with environmental issues. The IPM program
does have a large component, of that in IPM, in both the
research program and the extension education program, that is
dealing with the interface between agricultural production and
other demands upon natural resources and the environment.
With the goal of placing 75 percent of the cropland under
IPM practices by the year 2000 you get back to two or three
real basic issues. One is the point raised by Mr. Fazio earlier
today: is IPM an economical practice for a farmer to adopt. I
think that most of the studies that we have at this stage of
the game, although incomplete but continuing, are showing that
IPM practices that have positive economic impacts for the
farmer.
Just as an example, a study that was conducted two or three
years ago showed that there was a $600 million annual savings
in pesticide expenditures by U.S. agriculture from the use of
IPM practices.
When we consider that a farmer or producer may have 35 or
38 percent of their variable costs associated with pesticides
or chemicals of one sort or another, it becomes an alarmingly
important issue, both for the environment and for Agriculture's
competitiveness.
Fundamental Research
Another issue that you raised, is your concern with
fundamental research. Perhaps I could address it from the
point-of-view of the emphasis being placed in this budget on
the NRI.
There is a $36 million increase requested in the budget
because of just the points that you and others on this
committee have made about the absolute necessity of focusing
funds on fundamental plant and animal issues that get at the
heart of the underlying problems that lead to the applied
research that we ultimately need to be competitive.
The NRI is focusing 57 percent of the overall program on
very fundamental research. And of the remainder of the program
which is approximately 43 percent is what we call mission
linked research.
Within mission linked research some of that is also basic
research such as understanding plant and animal life systems
and issues that lead to solutions to some of these very basic
problems.
One more point that I thought would be interesting to you
and, particularly to Mr. Walsh because he talked about the
Golden Nematode. In Long Island, is research supported by the
NRI. Researchers at North Carolina State University discovered
a couple of years ago that the nematode exuded an enzyme when
it attached itself to the roots of a plant. This in effect
triggered a genetic code inside the plant that diverted food
from the roots of the plant to the nematode. So, with some
genetic engineering, the scientists were able to alter that
trigger. So, now after the nematode attaches to the plant and
exudes the enzyme it starves to death because the plant no
longer will divert its food sources to the nematode. Those are
the basic fundamental life issues that this type of basic
research is addressing.
EFNEP
Mr. Nethercutt. It's fascinating. I guess you don't know
what you'll find either. I just have one quick and final
question. I notice that we spend about $60 million on food and
nutrition education.
I know the Food and Consumer Service is responsible for a
lot of the nutrition programs. What's the $60 million for? How
is the data used? How does it interface with FCS?
Dr. Woteki. There are a number of different ways in which
we interface with the education programs of Food and Consumer
Services. But the funds that are in our budget in support of
nutrition education are funds that largely are within our
extension program.
Among the largest expenditures there are the Expanded Food
and Nutrition Education Program. It is a program that provides
nutrition skills and food skills to low income people. It is an
extremely important education program; particularly given
changes that are now occurring in the Food Stamp Program and
other programs.
The nutrition education that we do, as I said, is largely
delivered through our extension partners and through a variety
of different programs. I'd like to ask Dr. Robinson if he could
give you a complete overview of what those programs are in
addition to EFNEP which I mentioned.
Dr. Robinson. I will take Dr. Woteki's points a bit farther
and this relates to an issue Ms. DeLauro raised early on. That
issue is, how are we ultimately going to get nutrition research
and basic findings to people who need them? Nutrition education
programs are the vehicles for doing that. There are a number of
different nutrition education programs.
The program you referred to is a very specific one in the
extension portfolio; Our budget request includes $59 million to
support the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program. This
program is aimed primarily at people who have a limited
understanding of nutrition, and who are struggling on limited
budgets to achieve a better nutritional balance for themselves
and their children.
For example, over 51 percent of the people who are
participants in EFNEP have monthly incomes of less than $500.
We are addressing a very specific audience with this program.
We are trying to help program participants overcome a lack of
understanding of nutritional and human nutrition needs, and
enable them to interface both Food Stamp and other food
assistance programs, with their family budgets and nutritional
needs.
Mr. Nethercutt. We're not covering that in WIC, for
example? I'm just trying to see what duplication there is in
the system in terms of food and nutrition education.
Dr. Robinson. WIC is limited to women, infants, and
children. The education program that they have in WIC is a very
limited program. In fact about three years ago there was the
Nutrition Education Initiative, a program within cooperative
extension, which cooperated with the Food and Consumer Service
unit in offering food and nutrition education specifically to
WIC recipients.
That program was eliminated in fiscal year 1996. But the
program that we have actually takes the very limited
educational activities of WIC and expands them. In fact, many
of the WIC recipients are also participants in this program
which allows them to go well beyond the very basic WIC training
to more detailed training on how to interface diets and budgets
and the problems that they're facing.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you.
Dr. Woteki. Dr. Horn I think wants to add something.
Mr. Nethercutt. I'm sorry.
Dr. Horn. I think it's very important to note how
complementary these two programs have become. The average
length of time spent in nutritional counseling in WIC is about
15 minutes. The referrals go from WIC to this EFNEP program
when they spot a real problem.
So, in fact they are indeed complementary. In addition to
that, I would say that whatever success we have achieved in
human nutrition research we hope will be superimposed on our
food assistance programs in such a way that they become model
nutrition programs. And EFNEP, the extension programs, and the
education program will be an extremely important part of that.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. One little comment. When you were
talking about the nematode awhile ago, it's amazing to me the
analogy between plant health and human being health. That's
precisely the process that they're going through now on tumors,
cancerous tumors. They're starving them to death by causing the
blood flow to quit feeding the tumor. The same process is going
on with the nematode, almost exactly. Mr. Fazio.
Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Nethercutt
and I have such similar districts that we could ask the same
questions. I'll put my PM10 research question in the record. I
also wanted to ask you, Mr. Robinson. I was looking with the
help of our able staff through the budget submission here.
DELTA TEACHERS ACADEMY
And I discovered there were some interesting items that you
are about to eliminate. One of them was the Delta Teachers
Academy. I wonder what Delta are we educating those teachers in
and for what purpose was that originally provided. I guess in
terms of eliminating that--it seems a bit out of place in a
budget that's designed as yours is. Maybe you could further
enlighten us as to how this anomaly occurred.
Dr. Robinson. Well, the Delta Teachers Academy is one of
the programs which as I mentioned a moment ago, that when we
reviewed to see if it had a national or regional focus. This
one has a more localized focus. That is not to say that it
isn't an important program because it did have some very
important results.
It is based in Louisiana to train or upgrade the training
of teachers in the southern region, particularly in Mississippi
and Louisiana, to help them offer better educational programs
to students. In the program evaluation the recipients reported
that they received excellent training.
It's not to say that it isn't important, it's just that it
wasn't one of the highest priority issues when we looked at our
overall budget priorities.
Mr. Fazio. Was this training in agricultural issues?
Dr. Robinson. It was broader training for secondary
education programs in rural areas.
Mr. Fazio. So, in other words, it was just out of place
here. It may well have done what it was designed to do, but it
should have been with the Department of Education perhaps?
Dr. Robinson. Probably there are several places that it
could have been located. We were chosen.
Mr. Fazio. Sometimes that happens. When you're chosen, you
must perform.
Dr. Robinson. That's correct.
Methyl Bromide
Mr. Fazio. And I guess in this case you've decided you've
done about enough of that. I understand the pressures you come
under. I'm under tremendous pressure as Mr. Nethercutt would
imply on the methyl bromide issue. I can't tell you how
provocative this has become. You can start a fight in five
minutes just mentioning the word.
We have a whole agricultural economy, whether it's a pre-
planning or a post-planning economy that's depending on this.
I've got a $500 million strawberry industry not far from where
I am; I've got a tomato industry in my area.
We've got the Japanese Government requiring us to fumigate
before we export our prunes, almonds, walnuts, raisins. We have
2001 looking at us in the face and despite efforts which I
guess in the last three fiscal years would amount to in your
budget about $14 million each year. Not a lot reassurance for
people who are dependent on this product.
Could you fill in further behind Mr. Nethercutt's question?
How far have we come? Are we getting anywhere that's at all
reassuring in terms of a future without methyl bromide?
Dr. Horn. We have accepted this as clearly one of the very
highest priorities of the department. It is probably the most
important single chemical that's used to protect our food
supply and make it marketable around the world. Yet it is a
serious ozone depleter. We've signed various treaties, and
we've passed various laws at home that make it impossible to
continue it's use at least under current agreements, past the
year 2001.
We are searching everywhere for alternatives. The sense is
that there is no single chemical alternative, no silver bullet.
We have, in the past, been challenged to come up with other
things. EDB was a good example. In fact, we were successful
with EDB because we had methyl bromide. It is not so this time.
It would appear from all of our interactions with the
industry and the international community that we have a real
challenge in front of us. On the other hand, there are some
promising alternatives. We are not certain at this point
whether it's going to be economically useful.
We have probably a dozen technologies, solarization, etc.
There are some alternative chemicals, mulching and other things
that seem promising and we're about to get in to the business
of doing the economic analysis. We've also upscaled these
technologies from the laboratory so to speak to the commercial
operation and have gone into partnership, both in Florida and
in California, with a number of producers to make sure that
they can make use of the technology in the way they do business
and to make the appropriate adjustments to see that it's
properly evaluated.
They are advising us regularly I mean very regularly, as to
how well we are doing and what we should be concentrating on.
So, this is job one in many ways. We are very well aware of not
only how important it is, but the disadvantage it will put the
United States under if we stop using it ten years before some
of the developing countries of the world.
Mr. Fazio. Well, you've just touched on what I hope is
something we can remedy not only in our international
discussions but also with a pretty narrow and clinical
amendment in the Clean Air Act that I think will be absolutely
required if we're going to give our growers the chance to live
under the same laws that their competition is going to be
allowed to live under by treaty.
But in the interim, I guess we will continue to make every
effort to find the solution to this. But at the moment it
doesn't sound as if we have any particularly good alternative.
Dr. Horn. There are some that are not particularly good
compared to methyl bromide, but they're a lot better than any
we knew about a few years ago. The newsletter that you have in
the bag there, the previous issues of it, are used to
communicate with the industry and anyone else interested.
I can tell you we are also working with our partners
internationally. For instance, the Israelis both use and
produce this stuff. And we have been able to bring some extra
funds to bear through a U.S.-Israel Science and Technology
Commission that will be applied to finding alternatives to
methyl bromide.
So, we're doing everything to get an adequate research
program up and running that will do some good in the short time
that's allowed.
Mr. Fazio. Are you getting any support financially from the
private sector?
Dr. Horn. There has been support from the outset from such
groups as the California Strawberry Commission. And they have
funded their own research. The same is true of the vegetable
growers in Florida. So, the answer to that is yes.
Mr. Fazio. But it's been from the growers, not those who
produce methyl bromide.
Dr. Horn. That's right. I know of none.
Mr. Fazio. That's not an unusual pattern I've noted in this
regard. The growers are the ones on the line who have far fewer
resources than people who often are the purveyors of these
products. I'd like to figure out how we can get more
cooperative research going with people who perhaps have even
more profit on the line.
Dr. Horn. So would we.
Mr. Fazio. If you've got any great ideas, supply it for the
record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Nethercutt?
Mr. Nethercutt. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Fazio?
Mr. Fazio. No, sir.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Serrano said he'd be back, so he'd better
hurry. I want to say one thing. The research has been
absolutely the main spring of our success in agriculture. There
is no two ways about this. Our problem is how do you get people
into agriculture? That's been the short part. I don't know what
kind of research we could do because the investment on a start-
up on an agricultural enterprise is enormous if it's going to
support a family of four. I don't think that any research group
could sit around and say, well, what are we going to do to keep
people in the farming and agriculture business?.
On a per unit basis we're probably the best producers as an
agricultural unit anywhere in the world. I used to say that we
have the ability to feed the entire world. One of the
economists said, don't ever say that. It comes close to being
pretty near true.
There are a few other places in the entire world where you
have a small population involved in agriculture that are
producing as much as we produce. One of the countries that
comes to mind is Australia, New Zealand, areas like that. We're
fighting each other over the wheat exports. They don't want us
in Indonesia. We don't want them in the corn business.
I think what we're really talking about here is the very
heartbeat of our agricultural system. I appreciate the work
that you folks do and how well you do it. The responses that
we've had from year-from-year, and of course we play politics
with the budget. It's a part of the political process. There is
no question about it. We still have to come to some consensus
on what produces the most for us. We appreciate the work that
you do and the time that you give us. With that, I think we
will just adjourn. May we also submit questions to be answered
in writing?
Dr. Woteki. We're certainly expecting some, Mr. Skeen.
Mr. Skeen. You're always looking ahead; aren't you?
Dr. Woteki. Yes. It's a characteristic of a researcher.
Mr. Skeen. This is a trained response.
Dr. Woteki. We'd be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you all. Thank you all very much. We're
adjourned.
[The following questions were submitted to be answered for
the record:]
Agricultural Research Service
bard
Mr. Skeen. The U.S.-Israeli Binational Agricultural Research and
Development Program was established in 1977. The original endowment was
for $80 million. What is currently in the endowment?
Response. The amount currently in the endowment is $110 million.
Mr. Skeen. What has been provided to date for the BARD program?
Response. The original $80 million endowment was established in
1977. In 1984 Congress provided an additional $15 million which was
matched by the Israeli Government. Currently the total endowment is
valued at $110 million U.S. Dollars.
Mr. Skeen. For the record, what were the original conditions for
funding this program?
Response. The original conditions for funding this program required
that both the U.S. and Israel contribute $40 million each to an
endowment for the promotion and support of agricultural research and
the development of research of mutual interest and benefit particularly
for geographical areas in which water supply and rain fall limit crop
production.
Mr. Skeen. What is the current interest rate at which the corpus is
accumulating funds?
Response. The current interest at which the body is accumulating
funds includes the original investment of $80 million at 7 percent, and
the additional $30 million invested at the London Interbank Offer Rate
of 6.9 percent.
Mr. Skeen. Has Israel matched all U.S. funding in this account?
Response. Yes, Israel has matched all U.S. funding in this account.
Mr. Skeen. What is the total amount of Israeli funding to date?
Response. The total amount of Israeli funding to date is $55
million contributed to the endowment plus $7.5 million ($2.5 million
each year) to fund research grants in 1994 through 1996. It is
anticipated that the same level of funding will be provided in FY 1997.
Mr. Skeen. For the record please provide some specifics of what has
been accomplished so far in this research project.
Response. Some of the recent accomplishments include:
Integrated Pest Management.--Increased resistance to pesticides and
pressing environmental and food safety concerns have led to intense
interest in biological pest control in both the U.S. and in Israel.
Harvested fruits have high-market value, however, losses due to disease
and damage are considerable. BARD supported collaboration between
scientists from the U.S. and Israel have found natural bacterial and
yeast antagonists of citrus green mold, blue mold and sour rot fungi.
The emerging technology from these joint projects has been co-patented.
Improved Water Utilization for Agriculture.--In addition to being
available in limited supply, water resources in arid areas often are
saline. About two-thirds of the U.S. groundwater supply contains 1,000-
3,000 ppm salt. Israel is a pioneer in the profitable agricultural use
of brackish water. U.S.-Israeli joint BARD projects have resulted in
special irrigation schedules, developed from a series of computerized
models, which have helped to save pecan orchards in the American
Southwest. The technology is also advantageous for Israel, where
agriculture consumes 70% of the water resources.
Identification of Genetic Markers.--Genetic markers are useful and
important in poultry and beef breeding. BARD projects have already
provided the central foundation for development of genetic maps of the
poultry genome. Current BARD projects are developing genetic markers
for important properties such as growth, and production in both beef
and poultry.
ars budget request
Mr. Skeen. For the record, would you provide a list of every
proposed research project termination shown in the budget
justification, showing what the fiscal years 1996 and 1997 spending
levels are, and list where the research is currently being conducted.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 33 - 38--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. Your budget shows over $30 million in budget increases.
Please provide a list of each specific research increase and show the
amount and location of the research activity. Please be specific, for
example the request for soil, water and air sciences is $3,996,000--
please show us where each dollar would be spent.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 40 - 44--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. The fiscal year 1997 budget request included $7.9
million in ``administrative savings.'' The Congress agreed to those
reductions. Again this year you proposed to save $3.5 million in
administrative and program management support. For the record, please
provide a list showing those decreases by research area.
[The information follows:]
Amount of
Research area: decrease
Soil Water and Air Sciences............................... $406,000
Plant Sciences............................................ 1,449,000
Animal Sciences........................................... 650,000
Commodity Conversion and Delivery......................... 696,000
Human Nutrition........................................... 121,000
Integration of Agricultural Systems....................... 88,000
Information and Library Services.......................... 90,000
consultant/extramural activities to be discontinued
Mr. Skeen. Please provide for the record a list of all consultants
and extramural activities that you would discontinue in fiscal year
1998.
Response. A list of all extramural activities that will be
discontinued in fiscal year 1998 will be provided for the record. ARS
has not hired consultants under 5 U.S.C. 3109 since 1993.
[Pages 46 - 52--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
object class table
Mr. Skeen. A review of your budget justification shows a
significant change to Object Class 25.2, Other Services. Please provide
a breakout of the Other Services object class.
[The information follows:]
25.2 OTHER SERVICES
[Fiscal year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchases and contracts................. $6,075,900 $5,569,800
Training/tuition fees, etc.............. 992,600 909,600
Fees.................................... 213,500 196,000
Participation fees...................... 64,100 58,700
Construction contracts.................. 82,800 75,900
ARCH & engineering contracts............ 2,338,700 2,143,500
Insurance claims and indemnities........ 86,400 79,500
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 9,854,000 9,033,000
Buildings and facilities................ 30,500,000 33,000,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 40,354,000 42,033,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cooperative agreements
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a list of specific cooperative agreements
with state institutions for fiscal year 1996 and 1997.
[The information is provided:]
[Pages 54 - 58--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
plant science base budget
Mr. Skeen. The Committee has always supported integrated pest
management research. The budget targets that area for significant
increases. Your goal is to have IPM practices on 75 percent of all crop
acres by the year 2000. Can you tell how many acres currently are being
farmed using IMP practices and the source of your information?
Response. Integrated pest management strategies have been applied
in agriculture for over 30 years. Upon the commencement of USDA's
integrated pest management initiative in 1994, the Department estimated
that American farmers have adopted IPM methods for pest management on
nearly half of all fruit and nut, vegetable, and major field crop
acreage. Total cropland used for cross in the United States is
estimated at 332 million acres. The level of use of IPM practices
depends on the crop, the region and the pest problem. The National
Agricultural Statistical Service is currently conducting national
surveys of major field crops, and selected fruits and vegetables to
ascertain levels of IPM adoption and chemical use. The challenge for
USDA as the initiative continues is to further increase the knowledge
of IPM, improve delivery of technical expertise and increase adoption
of IPM practices.
preharvest food safety research
Mr. Skeen. Last year the Committee directed The Food Safety and
Inspection Agency to coordinate its research with ARS and expected FSIS
to in-general get out of the research business and let the research
agencies (ARS & CREES) handle any needs. Has that happened?
Response. The ARS has continued to work with the Food Safety
Inspection Service to use Agency resources to the best advantage to
meet the research needs of the Food Safety Inspection Service.
Coordination is carried out through the ARS/FSIS Food Safety Research
Workshop, regular discussions between the liaisons from each agency,
and scientific discussions between the scientists of each agency
concerned. However, the FSIS is (1) soliciting for information
regarding new technologies that will assist them with verification of
hazard reduction, particularly, pathogenic hazards, from farm to table;
and (2) soliciting for proposals for a series of pilot demonstration
projects which may assist food animal producers, the slaughter and
processing industry, and their Agency in meeting food safety challenges
in a preventive HACCP framework.
Mr. Skeen. What is the total amount spent for preharvest food
safety in fiscal year 1997?
Response. ARS will spend $11,371,900 for preharvest food safety
research in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. How much is programmed in fiscal year 1997 and where is
this research being conducted?
Response. ARS has programmed $11,371,900 for preharvest food safety
research in fiscal year 1997. This research is being conducted at
Fayetteville, Arkansas; Athens, Georgia; Ames, Iowa; Beltsville,
Maryland; Clay Center, Nebraska; and college Station, Texas.
postharvest pathogen reduction research
Mr. Skeen. What does ARS currently spend on postharvest research?
Please provide a table showing how much and where funds were used in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and where they would be used in fiscal year
1998.
Response. ARS currently spends $13,580,200 on postharvest pathogen
reduction research. The dollars and locations where funds were used in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and where they would be used in fiscal year
1998 will be provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years; funds--
Location --------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, CA....................... $1,424,900 $2,569,800 $2,869,800
Athens, GA....................... 1,464,700 2,194,700 2,465,600
Ames, IA......................... ........... 334,600 334,600
Beltsville, MD................... 725,500 719,000 1,019,000
Clay Center, NE.................. 756,300 748,600 748,600
Wyndmoor, PA..................... 4,682,400 6,464,300 7,464,300
College Station, TX.............. 554,800 549,200 549,200
Pullman, WA...................... ........... ........... 300,000
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 9,608,600 13,580,200 15,751,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
human nutrition research
Mr. Skeen. The fiscal year 1998 budget proposes a significant
increase for human nutrition research of $12 million. How much does the
Department of Health and Human Services spend on human nutrition
research?
Response. In FY 1995, NIH funds for nutrition research and training
were $428,687,000; about 95 percent of the funds spent by the
Department of Health and Human Services for human nutrition research is
done by NIH. Of Federal funds spent on human nutrition research and
training, about 80 percent is through NIH; about 14 percent is through
USDA, which is the designated lead agency of the Federal government for
human nutrition research. Much of human nutrition research in NIH is
directed towards studying the biochemistry and molecular biology of
nutrients, the use of nutrients to treat disease and nutritional needs
during illness. USDA has the primary responsibility for developing
fundamental information on nutrient requirements of healthy people,
which is used to set Dietary Guidelines for Americans and is the basis
for Federal food assistance programs. Thus, the USDA/ARS Human
Nutrition Research Centers are performing research resulting in
knowledge that will greatly solidify the relationship between nutrition
research and production agriculture, assure the availability of a
nutritious food supply, expand the development of sound dietary
recommendations, result in the establishment of more effective food
assistance programs, reduce health care costs, and improve quality of
life. To accomplish the preceding will require consultation and
coordination with many others in the Federal government including the
National Institutes of Health. Research objectives of the USDA/ARS
Human Nutrition Research Centers include: (1) Reduce health care costs
and enhance the quality of life by defining the relationship between
diet, inheritance, and lifestyle and the risk for chronic disease such
as obesity, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and cancer. (2) Improve
the resistance to acute infections and immune disorders by
investigating the interaction between nutrition and immune function.
(3) Enhance the capacity to promote changes in dietary habits by basic
research on neural processes, memory and learning, appetite regulation,
and physiological factors influencing food habits. (4) Improve the
scientific basis for more effective federal food assistance programs by
better defining nutrient requirements and monitoring food and nutrient
consumption and identifying socio-economic, cultural, and environmental
forces that influence eating habits. (5) Extend dietary guidance to
nutritionally-vulnerable groups within the U.S. by determining how food
consumption at critical points in the life cycle affects normal
development and risk of disease. (6) Generate a more nutritious food
supply by conducting research that defines the basis for modifying the
health promoting properties of plant and animal foods, and make
beneficial changes in the composition of foods by using biotechnology,
genetics, and new food processing technologies.
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please provide a table showing each
location for ARS funding of human nutrition research and how much
funding is allotted for fiscal year 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Response. The funding for the ARS Human Nutrition Research Centers
and other related programs for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 will
be provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Center -----------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beltsville Human Nutrition
Research Center, Beltsville,
MD........................... $18,689,200 $18,499,900 $19,499,900
Grant Forks Human Nutrition
Research Center, Grant Forks,
ND........................... 8,081,600 7,999,700 8,999,700
Human Nutrition Research
Center on Aging at Tufts
University, Boston, MA....... 14,864,200 14,747,900 15,747,900
(Includes Geriatric
Nutrition Research,
Danville, PA)............ (200,000) (188,000) (188,000)
Children's Nutrition Research
Center at Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, TX........ 10,841,400 10,756,600 11,756,600
Western Human Nutrition,
Research Center, San
Francisco, CA................ 5,372,000 5,317,600 6,317,600
Arkasas Children's Nutrition
Research Center, Little Rock,
AR........................... 1,393,000 1,878,800 2,878,800
Lower Mississippi Delta
Nutrition Intervention
Research Initiative (LA, AR,
MS).......................... 2,436,400 3,166,900 3,166,900
National Agricultural Library,
Beltsville, MD............... 800,000 693,400 693,400
Headquarters (Food Intake
Survey)...................... ............ ............ 6,000,000
Other Locations............... 1,545,600 1,075,600 1,089,600
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 64,023,400 64,136,400 76,150,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. What would be necessary to fully fund and staff each
human nutrition research facility?
Response. Fully funding and staffing of the USDA/ARS Human
Nutrition Research Centers is needed to accomplish the following
objectives: (1) Reduce health care costs and enhance the quality of
life by defining the relationship between diet, inheritance, and
lifestyle and the risk for chronic disease such as obesity, diabetes,
ischemic heart disease, and cancer. (2) Improve the resistance to acute
infections and immune disorders by investigating the interaction
between nutrition and immune function. (3) Enhance the capacity to
promote changes in dietary habits by basic research on neural
processes, memory and learning, appetite regulation, and physiological
factors influencing food habits. (4) Improve the scientific basis for
more effective federal food assistance programs by better defining
nutrient requirements and monitoring food and nutrient consumption and
identifying socio-economic, cultural, and environmental forces that
influence eating habits. (5) Extend dietary guidance to nutritionally-
vulnerable groups within the U.S. by determining how food consumption
at critical points in the life cycle affects normal development and
risk of disease. (6) Generate a more nutrition food supply by
conducting research that defines the basis for modifying the health
promoting properties of plant and animal foods, and make beneficial
changes in the composition of foods by using biotechnology, genetics,
and new food processing technologies.
The funding required for the ARS Human Nutrition Research Centers,
if each was fully funded and staffed, is provided for the record.
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland--
The total funding to operate the Center at a full capacity of 50
scientists (43 Sys currently on board) is $32.5 million, requiring an
increase of $14 million from current base funding.
Reaching full staffing will maximize the capability of the Center
to define the role of food and its components in optimizing health and
reducing the risk of nutritionally related disorders in the diverse
American population. This includes: an expanded and greatly needed
continuation of National Nutrition Monitoring ($7 million); development
of analytical methods to measure biologically important substances
(phytochemicals) in foods of plant origin ($2 million); studies of the
relationship between nutritional status and viral pathogenesis ($2
million); mathematical modeling of diet/health relationships ($1.5
million); and nutrient regulation of gene expression ($1.5 million).
Approximately $10.5 million of this expanded research will be
accomplished through cooperative agreements and contracts.
Grant Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Folks, North
Dakota--The total funding to operate the Center at a full capacity of
26 scientists (12.2 Sys currently on board) is $12.9 million, requiring
an increase of $4.9 million from current base funding.
Reaching full staffing will maximize the capability of the Center
to serve the public by determining nutrients needs for humans and to
provide information concerning healthy food choices and a healthful
food supply with an emphasis on mineral requirements that prevent
disease and promote health and optimal function throughout life. This
includes: determination of the importance of mineral elements at the
molecular level with an emphasis on chronic disease ($1.0 million);
identification of detrimental functional changes, especially in bone,
brain, cardiovascular, and reproductive systems that occur in the U.S.
population because of improper mineral element nutriture ($2.4
million); identification and validation of biochemical and
physiological status assessment indicators that can be used in the
study of populations that are likely to suffer from inadequate mineral
element nutriture ($1.0 million); and the definition of the impact of
environmental, dietary, physiological, and psychological stressors on
mineral element requirements ($0.5 million).
Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
University, Boston, Massachusetts.--The total funding to operate the
Center at full capacity of 60 ARS (2.9 Sys currently on board) and
contract scientists at this Government Owned Contractor Operated
facility is $20.8 million, requiring an increase of $6.0 million from
current base funding.
Reaching full staffing will maximize the capability of the Center
to develop information about safe and adequate nutrient intakes and
identification of factors that may contribute to degenerative processes
associated with aging. This includes: determination of age-related loss
of cognitive function and dementias in the elderly with special
attention to nutritional factors that may prevent vascular forms of
dementia, including dietary oxidants and B vitamins in foods ($1.0
million); expansion of the capacity to conduct metabolic and applied
nutritional studies in elderly humans with the focus on nutritional
requirements for healthy aging and prevention of disease ($2.5
million); definition of basic mechanisms that connect aging and loss of
muscle strength and function, and nutritional influences on this
process ($1.5 million); development of assessment tools by using
molecular, genetic, body composition and functional biochemistry
methods that can be applied to the measurement of nutritionally-related
disease risk in the elderly ($1.0 million). Most of the expanded
research will be accomplished through cooperative agreements.
Children's Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine,
Houston, Texas.--The total funding to operate the Center at full
capacity of 50 ARS (3 Sys currently on board) and contract scientists
at this facility operated under a General Cooperative Agreement is
$19.8 million, requiring an increase of $9.0 million from current base
funding.
Reaching full staffing will maximize the capability of the Center
to define the nutritional needs of pregnant and lactating women and of
their infants and children from conception through adolescence. This
includes: determination of which genes are regulated directly by
dietary nutrients and, conversely, which genes alter the way
individuals are able to deal with common patterns of dietary nutrient
intake leading to adverse health consequences ($2.0 million);
determination of which nutrients consumed at the time of conception,
during the earliest stage of embryo formation, and during fetal life
alter the normal course of human development and, therefore, produce
permanent consequences for the child after birth ($2.0 million);
determination of the biochemical, physiological, and neurophysiological
regulators of energy intake, energy expenditure, appetite, and satiety,
and which genes control these processes leading to the development of
obesity in childhood and adolescence ($2.5 million); identification of
the nutritional, biochemical, and hormonal regulators of skeletal
mineralization during infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and how
these relate to the subsequent development of osteoporosis in later
life ($1.0 million); and identification of the specific, unique
components of mother's milk that affect the developmental and
maturational function of various organ systems in the infant, and the
specific nutritional factors necessary for optimal health and post-
natal development of the prematurely born infant of very low birth
weight ($1.5 million). Approximately $4.5 million of this expanded
research will be accomplished through cooperative agreements.
Western Human Nutrition Research Center, San Francisco,
California.--The total funding to operate the Center at full capacity
of 30 scientists (12 Sys currently on board) is $11.8 million,
requiring an increase of $6.5 million from current base funding.
Reaching full staffing will maximize the capability of the Center
to improve human health and performance by determining the impacts of
dietary, environmental, behavioral, and genetic factors on nutrient
requirements and functions. This includes: determination of factors
that affect the maintenance of healthy body weight, and of biomarkers
of risk of obesity ($1.0 million); determination of the influence of
nutrition on infection and immune disorders ($1.5 million); use of
stable isotopes and mathematical modeling of nutrient metabolism to
integrate levels of nutrient requirements for different functions ($1.0
million); and identification of protective factors of health in foods
(e.g., phytoestroegens, phytonutrients, etc.) and determination of
their mechanism of action ($3.3 million).
Arkansas Children's Nutrition Research Center, Little Rock,
Arkansas.--The total funding to operate the Center at full capacity is
$14.5 million requiring an increase of $12.6 million from current base
funding.
Reaching full staffing will maximize the capability of the Center
to determine the role of nutrition in cognitive and behavioral
function, and the health consequences of infant consumption of dietary
factors (phytochemicals) such as phytoestrogens on endocrine and
metabolic development and prevention of chronic diseases. This
includes: determination of nutritive factors affecting cognitive and
brain function ($2.5 million); identification of phytoestrogens and
determination of how they affect important body functions such as
reproduction and prevention of chronic disease ($2.9 million);
determination of the impact of nutrition on reducing infections and/or
adverse immune responses, and the factors influencing the development
of adverse immunologic reactions to foods ($1.8 million); determination
of the relationship between childhood dietary intake and prevention of
adulthood chronic diseases (e.g., cancer) ($3.5 million); and
determination of dietary intake and neuronal processes underlying
appetite regulation and physiological factors influencing childhood
eating disorders so as to promote good diet habits leading to better
health ($1.9 million). Most of this expanded research will be
accomplished through cooperative agreements.
The overall outcome of these news areas of research along with
current areas of research within USDA/ARS Human Nutrition Research
Centers is that the knowledge obtained will greatly solidify the
relationship between nutrition research and production agriculture,
assure the availability of a nutritious food supply, expand the
development of sound dietary recommendations, result in the
establishment of more effective food assistance programs, reduce health
care costs, and improve quality of life. To accomplish the preceding
will require consultation and coordination with many others in the
Federal government including ARS scientists in agricultural production
and post-harvest research, and personnel in agencies such as Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Food and Consumer Services, Cooperative
State Research, Education and Extension Service, and the National
Institutes of Health.
Mr. Skeen. Of the six centers mentioned three are owned and
operated by ARS. One is government-owned and contractor-operated by
Tufts University and one is operated under a cooperative agreement with
Baylor University. How is the ARS facility operated at the Arkansas
Children's Hospital? How is the research is at this facility related to
ARS mission?
Response. The Arkansas Children's Nutrition Research Center is
operated under two cooperative agreements with ARS; it also receives a
special grant from CSREES. All Human Nutrition Research Centers have
primary responsibility for developing fundamental information on human
nutrient requirements that provide the basis for dietary guidelines for
Americans of all ages, and for federal food assistance programs. They
also are charged to conduct research that will show the importance of
diet in promoting health and preventing disease. The Arkansas
Children's Nutrition Research Center conducts research that will give
fundamental information on the nutrient requirements to maintain good
cognitive and behavior functions in children. The Center also is
investigating the health consequences of infant consumption of hormone-
like compounds found in vegetables, grains and fruits (phytochemicals)
on their development and the prevention of chronic diseases.
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the record the type of research
carried out at each of the Centers and some of the recent
accomplishments of each center.
Response. The type of research carried out at each of the six ARS
Human Nutrition Research Centers and in related human nutrition
research programs, and their recent accomplishments will be provided
for the record.
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland,
develops new methods of food analysis; studies the role of nutrients
and their interactions in maintaining health; conducts nutrition
monitoring and maintains the database of the nutrient content of foods;
studies the expenditure of energy by using direct and indirect
calorimetry; and conducts studies investigating the consequences of
altered nutrient intakes in free-living humans.
Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
University, Boston, Massachusetts, determines factors related to
prevention of age-related loss of bone density leading to osteoporosis
and fracture, and the preservation of muscle strength; identifies
dietary factors critical in slowing or preventing cataract development;
studies the relation of antioxidant food components to heart disease
and immune function; and explores relationships between vitamins and
brain function, stroke and dementia.
Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, North
Dakota, determines the importance of mineral elements at the molecular
level with an emphasis on chronic disease; identifies detrimental
functional changes, especially in bone, brain, cardiovascular and
reproductive systems that occur in the U.S. population because of
improper mineral element nutriture; identifies and validates
biochemical and physiological status assessment indicators that can be
used in the study of populations that are likely to suffer from
inadequate mineral element nutrition; and defines the impact of
environmental, dietary, physiological and psychological stressors on
mineral element requirements.
Children's Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine,
Houston, Texas, establishes nutrient requirements to prevent low birth
weight babies, particularly in pregnant adolescents; studies nutrient-
gene interactions that regulate metabolism and disposition of
nutrients; determines nutrient requirements for growth and development
of school-aged and adolescent children; and establishes nutritional
connections to acute and chronic childhood diseases.
Western Human Nutrition Research Center, San Francisco, California,
determines the impacts of dietary, environmental, behavioral, and
genetic factors on nutrient requirements and functions with emphasis on
maintenance of healthy body weight, infection and immune disorders, and
protective factors in food; and designs and tests strategies for
nutrition interventions for use in national action programs.
Arkansas Children Nutrition Research Center, Little Rock, Arkansas,
determines nutrient requirements for the maintenance of cognitive and
behavior functions in children; and determines the healthy consequences
of infant consumption of phytochemicals (hormone-like compounds found
in vegetables, grains and fruits) on their development and the
prevention of chronic diseases.
Related Research Programs.--Research on nutritional qualities of
plants and animals is conducted at the ARS regional research laboratory
in Peoria, Illinois, and the Plant, Soil and Nutrition Laboratory at
Ithaca, New York.
Some recent accomplishments include:
Girls' calcium intake is crucial during early puberty.--Until now,
scientists have not be been able to identify the best time for growing
girls to get enough calcium from their diets in order to prevent
osteoporosis, also called brittle-bone disease, later in life. At the
USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center in Houston, Texas,
researchers studied girls age 11 to 17 years in order to determine how
their bodies absorbed calcium and used it for bone growth at different
age periods. After taking measurements involving harmless calcium
isotopes given by mouth and vein, the researchers found that the girls
best retained calcium during the early part of their pubertal
development, prior to their first menstrual period. This study has
broad significance for lifelong nutrition and health of females by
identifying the optimal window of time for making sure that girls get
enough dietary calcium to guard against bone problems later in life.
New function for vitamin K.--Fifty percent of the American
population consumes less than the recommended dietary allowance, or
RDA, for vitamin K. Over the past decade it has become increasingly
clear that vitamin K plays a role in the development and maintenance of
healthy bone and cartilage as well as its essential function in blood
coagulation. The observation that half of all Americans consume less
than the RDA for vitamin K (16 billionths of an ounce) was made by the
USDA/ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University
in Boston, Massachusetts. These results were obtained by using a newly
developed table of vitamin K composition of various foods and
beverages, and a food consumption model in collaboration with the FDA
Total Diet Study.
Reduced consumption of vitamin K may be related to the risk of bone
fractures and the development of osteoporosis in the elderly because of
the role of vitamin K in the skeletal system. Increased vitamin K
consumption may prevent these problems.
Dietary copper deficiency impairs blood clotting and clot
dissolution.--Some critically ill people in the U.S. die because of
excessive internal bleeding and accumulation of blood clots. It is
somewhat paradoxical that while bleeding time is increased in copper
deficiency, deficient rats and mice often die with large undissolved
clots. Scientists at the USDA/ARS Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research
Center in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and Federally funded scientists at
the University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, have examined blood
clotting factors, clot breakdown, and the clumping of platelets (blood
cells that initiate clotting). Clot dissolution was impaired, bleeding
time was increased, adhesion of platelets to platelets was increased,
and adhesion of platelets to blood vessel walls was decreased, because
of specific changes in protein chemistry. These findings help explain
why copper deficiency causes both increased bleeding and increased
presence of clots. The findings should further encourage the general
public to make an effort to consume a diet adequate in copper,
especially because the U.S. diet often is low in copper in comparison
to standards set by the National Academy of Sciences.
Rice cereal added to formula increases calcium and iron intake.--
Parents often add cereal to the formula fed to infants, but there has
been no information on how this practice affects calcium and iron
absorption. Researchers at the USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research
Center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, used specially
marked, harmless calcium and iron tracers to compare the absorption of
these minerals when infants were fed formula alone to when they were
fed rice cereal mixed with formula. The results indicated that adding
rice cereal to formula not only did not interfere with the absorption
of minerals by the infants, but provided more calcium and iron than
formula alone.
Early predictor of risk of osteoporosis. Individual genetic markers
predict low bone mass in young black and white women, and may be useful
as an early predictor of osteoporosis risk. Osteoporosis is caused
primarily by demineralized bones that break easily with minimal trauma
resulting in a quarter of million older Americans breaking there hips
each year, which adds 8 billion dollars to the health bill of the U.S.
and puts one-half of these people into long term nursing home care. The
development of an early warning system to detect those individuals with
increased propensity to develop low bone mass would be a significant
step forward in preventing this chronic disease and protecting the
health of older Americans. Scientists at the Human Nutrition Research
Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, have
found that young women (both black and white) with a particular genetic
variation of a gene (vitamin D receptor) that is involved in regulating
how the body handles calcium are more prone to have low bone mineral
density, and thus could be at greater risk of developing osteoporosis
as they age. Future developments in our understanding of how genetic
markers affect osteoporosis risk could lead to insights into how we can
identify susceptible individuals, and the development of new treatment
strategies to prevent the personal and financial strains associated
with this disease.
A dietary omega-3 fatty acid (docosahexanoic acid) reduces elevated
triglyceride levels in human blood.--Hypertriglyceridemia is a
condition afflicting millions of Americans in which the blood fats,
known as triglycerides, are elevated to levels that many researchers
believe puts one at risk for cardiovascular and other diseases. Fish
oil, a mixture of several omega-3 fatty acids, especially
eicosapentaenoic acid, substance not found in most other foods or human
tissues, will reduce triglyceride levels. Scientists at the Western
Human Nutrition Research Center in San Francisco, California, have
shown that docosahexanoic acid will also reduce triglyceride levels
when supplemented in the diet. This fatty acid, unlike eicosapentaenoic
acid, is in all meats and other animal products as well as fish oil,
and is a normal component of human tissues. Thus, people with
hypertriglyceridemia could acquire this fatty acid by consuming food
containing this compound rather than fish oil or eicosapentaenoic acid.
Dieting to lose weight can result in borderline anemia and lower
cognitive performance in women.--According to a recent report by the
Center for Disease Control, 40 percent of women and 25 percent of men
in the United States are trying to lose weight at any one time. Most
utilize some form of dieting to achieve their weight loss. In a weight
loss study conducted at the USDA/ARS Western Human Nutrition Research
Center in San Francisco, California, scientists found that about half
of the women developed borderline anemia and also displayed poor
cognitive performance on a sustained attention test. These findings
highlight the need for awareness by nutritionists and physicians of the
functional consequences of dieting when formulating diet and exercise
regimes for weight loss. Failure to do so could account for significant
losses in productivity of dieting Americans.
Consumption of one to two alcoholic drinks per day reduces blood
levels of some B vitamins.--Heavy alcohol consumption, which is a
serious health problem in the United States, reduces B vitamins
concentrations in blood which leads to neurological and mental
problems. Scientists at the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center,
Beltsville, Maryland, conducted a study to determine whether alcohol or
alcohol-free red wine affected the blood concentrations of B vitamins.
Even though the diets contained more than the recommended amounts of
vitamin B-12 and folic acid, blood concentrations of these two vitamins
in both men and women were lower when they consumed the equivalent of
one to two drinks a day. Therefore, daily consumption of even low
amounts of alcohol can reduce blood B vitamins although dietary intake
of these vitamins is adequate. This study emphasizes the care which
must be taken by nutritionists and health professionals who counsel
those who consume even low amounts of alcohol.
New test determines the best sugars to feed premature infants.--
Problems associated with providing sufficient nutrition to premature
infants ultimately prolong their hospitalization, which results in
significant increases in medical costs. New techniques developed by
researchers at the USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center at
Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, made it possible to test
the ability of premature infants to digest and absorb different sugars.
Researchers found that a starch-based sugar, in combination with the
sugar found in mother's milk, was digested and absorbed best. This
information should make it easier to feed premature infants and
consequently shorter their hospitalization.
What and where our children eat.--A recent survey by the USDA,
``What We Eat in America,'' conducted by the Beltsville Human Nutrition
Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland, has identified changes in food
consumption by children when compared to data collected in 1977-78.
Milk consumption by children and teenagers dropped, and low-fat and
skim milk is now consumed more frequently than whole milk among school-
age children. The proportion of these children drinking low- or non-fat
milk has doubled since the late 1970s, and consumption of soft drinks
has markedly increased. Fruit consumption decline with age for children
and teenagers, with fewer than half of teenagers in the U.S. consuming
a serving of fruit or fruit juice daily. On any given day, nearly two-
thirds of the school-age children now consume food or drink provided
outside the home. Food outside the home provided about 25 percent of
the total calories for grade school-age children and 33 percent for
teenagers. This information is extremely valuable in understanding
changes in food consumption among children and provides a basis for
designing effective intervention strategies and food assistance
programs.
Improved bioavailability of iron in infant formula.--Infants are a
population group that is at risk for iron deficiency; thus,
bioavailability of iron in infant formula is an important issue.
Scientists at the U.S. Plant, Soil and Nutrition Laboratory in Ithaca,
New York, have developed a method for estimating iron bioavailability
that simulates digestion followed by measurement of iron uptake by
cells grown in tissue culture. They found that the iron in human breast
milk was more available than that from infant formula. Additionally,
they found that bioavailability of iron from infant formula could be
increased by almost 50 percent by reducing the concentration of citric
acid, an organic compound found in relatively high concentrations in
several infant formulas. The method of using simulated digestion and
uptake by cell cultures to estimate iron bioavailability is of interest
to nutritionists, formula manufacturers, and plant breeders who are
trying to improve plant foods as sources of dietary iron.
Latest version of the USDA nutrient database made available.--Food
composition data for more than 5600 foods and 70 components were
released to the public in September, 1996. These data are the major
source of food composition information in the world. This new release
by the Nutrient Data Laboratory, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research
Center, Beltsville, Maryland, includes new data on beef and lamb cuts,
updated values for breakfast cereals, and selected new food items. It
supersedes previous releases of the database. This information may now
be accessed by the general public through the Internet. USDA food
composition data are used by other Federal agencies and by scientists
at the state, national and international levels to monitor food
consumption patterns to conduct nutrition research, and to stimulate
product development. In addition, it is used by the agricultural and
food industries to ensure adequate nutrient quality and to develop new
products.
New methods for studying loss of muscle with age.--Sarcopenia,
defined as the loss of skeletal muscle with age, leads to frailty, bone
fracture because of falls, and reduced immunity to disease. By
understanding the causes of muscle loss with age it is possible to
evaluate ways of maintaining functional capacity and quality of life
for the elderly. A new approach has been validated and used at the
USDA/ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging in Boston,
Massachusetts; this approach provides investigators with a sensitive
tool to test the efficacy of interventions (such as diet and exercise)
to manage sarcopenia and loss of appetite. Elemental Partition Analysis
is a new approach to body composition assessment. A major element of
the body is measured and then, by means of other measurements, it is
partitioned to the contributing compartments. Such elements are carbon
for fat, oxygen for lean, nitrogen for protein, and soft tissue
phosphorus for muscle. The direct measurement of the elements of the
body became possible with the collaboration of the Department of Energy
which modified existing neutron production technology, used by the
weapons program, to develop the neutron-generating devices necessary
for the measurements.
Supplements increase DHA in mothers' milk and their infants'
blood.--Getting adequate amounts of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), a fatty
acid found in brain and eye tissues as well as breast milk, is crucial
during early infancy, but milk DHA content is lower in lactating women
in the United States than in many other countries. At the USDA/ARS
Children's Nutrition Research Center in Houston, Texas, researchers
provided breast-feeding mothers with DHA supplements in three different
forms to determine whether they would increase the DHA content of their
milk. The results showed that all the supplements--a capsule containing
an algae-derived product, a capsule containing a special fish oil, and
high-DHA eggs--increased DHA content in the milk of mothers and the
blood of their infants. This study will affect the direction of future
research aimed at determining whether maternal DHA supplementation
improves visual and brain development in breast-fed infants.
Decreasing cadmium content of durum wheat.--Durum wheat grain
produced in the northern Great Plains of the United States can contain
amounts of cadmium, a toxic mineral element, that exceeds allowable
international limits and could exclude durum wheat grown in this region
from international trade. Soils in this region contain naturally-high
amounts of cadmium and low amounts of plant-available zinc, an
essential micronutrient. Scientists at the USDA/ARS Plant, Soil and
Nutrition laboratory in Ithaca, New York, have found evidence that the
movement of cadmium via phloem (a nutrient transport system in plants)
from one region of the root system to another is reduced by the
presence of zinc in the surrounding medium. These results support the
hypothesis that the amount of cadmium that moves into developing wheat
seeds, via phloem, depends upon the amount of zinc present in the plant
and suggests that sub-soil zinc deficiency may contribute to high
cadmium concentrations in durum wheat grain. The findings could lead to
agronomic practices that could be used by wheat growers to increase the
zinc content of wheat plants and reduce the accumulation of cadmium in
the wheat grain.
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a table showing the total USDA program
for human nutrition research and education, including the NRI, special
grants, Hatch Act, Smith-Lever, and other programs.
[The information follows:]
HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
actual estimate budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Nutrition Research and Monitoring
Program:
Agricutural Research Service....... $63.2 $63.4 $75.5
CSREES-Research and Education...... 13.2 12.8 12.7
Economic Research Service.......... 1.5 1.5 1.5
--------------------------------
Total............................ 77.9 77.7 89.7
================================
Human Nutrition Education, Evaluation
and Demonstrations:
Agricultural Research Service...... 0.8 0.7 0.7
CSREES-Extension Activities........ 77.5 76.7 78.2
Food and Consumer Service.......... 268.1 252.9 277.8
Food Safety and Inspection Service. 0.1 0.1 (\1\)
--------------------------------
Total............................ 346.5 330.4 356.7
================================
Total, Research, Education and
Information..................... 424.4 408.1 446.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $50,000.
university human nutrition research
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please describe the major research
programs in the field of human nutrition carried out at various
universities around the country.
Response. The major research programs in the field of human
nutrition at the various universities in the United States include
those at land-grant institutions as well as medical schools across the
country. These include Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; University
of California, Davis, and Berkeley, California; Iowa State University,
Ames, Iowa; University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois; Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania; University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida; Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas;
and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Medical schools
that have NIH-funded Clinical Nutrition Research Units are University
of Chicago; University of California at Davis; University of
Washington; Vanderbilt University; University of Colorado Health
Sciences; Massachusetts General Hospital; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center;
and Oregon Health Sciences Center. St. Luke's Roosevelt-Columbia
University has a NIH-funded Obesity Center. Obesity and Nutrition
Research Centers are at the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont;
New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; and University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Pennington Biomedical
Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, has a nutrition research
program associated with the Louisiana State University medical and
nutrition programs.
Mr. Skeen. How does ARS coordinate its research efforts with that
of universities to assure there is no duplication?
Response. Nutrition research is also competitively funded by NIH in
universities. Very few universities have facilities to conduct live-in,
controlled diet studies of suitable numbers of volunteers such as are
conducted at ARS Human Nutrition Research Centers. ARS Nutrition
Research Center Directors meet regularly to review our programs in
relation to other nutrition research and national needs. ARS scientists
have all research proposals peer reviewed and publish in peer reviewed
Journals that assure effort is not duplicated.
In planning research and setting priorities for human nutrition
research, ARS is continually involved in interactions with other groups
and individuals that deal with nutrition research conducted by
university scientists. Three of the six ARS Human Nutrition Research
Centers are directly affiliated with Universities; the other three are
co-located with or near Universities. Within USDA, ARS coordinates at
the senior staff and policy level with the Cooperative State Research
Education and Extension Service (CSREES) which provides competitive
nutrition research funding to Universities and otherwise administers
Federal funding support to Universities. Additionally, there are
interagency committees and boards that have University representation,
activities with the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of
Sciences and intensive involvement with the Committee on Health, Safety
and Food of the National Science and Technology Council.
swine research
Mr. Skeen. For the record, will you provide a list of all the
locations and how much is being funded for each location where ARS is
currently conducting swine research?
[The information follows:]
Fiscal year 1997
Location Funds
Fayetteville, AR.............................................. $49,900
Albany, CA.................................................... 55,100
Athens, GA.................................................... 1,309,800
Ames, IA...................................................... 5,088,400
Peoria, IL.................................................... 184,000
West Lafayette, IN............................................ 197,100
Beltsville, MD................................................ 6,448,000
Columbia, MO.................................................. 629,000
Fargo, ND..................................................... 186,400
Clay Center, NE............................................... 5,712,300
Greenport, NY................................................. 5,718,900
Wyndmoor, PA.................................................. 1,704,200
College Station, TX........................................... 365,300
Headquarters..................................................\1\ 65,500
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total.....................................................27,713,900
\1\ The Headquaters portion represents the amounts allocated to swine to
support the ARS program on Animal Genetic Resources. It is used to
operate the Animal Component of the Genetic Resources Information
Network (GRIN) Database; to develop and equip the Beltsville Repository;
and to maintain, store, and conduct required research on unique animal
germplasm at several ARS locations.
Mr. Skeen. What is the total amount of funding ARS is spending on
swine research in fiscal years 1996 and 1997?
Response. In fiscal year 1996, ARS allocated $26,839,000 for swine
research. In fiscal year 1997, $27,713,900 is allocated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the Iowa State swine research
construction project?
Response. The Iowa State swine research construction project,
National Swine Research Center (NSRC), includes a laboratory office
complex and a research farm. Construction of the laboratory office
complex on campus is underway, on schedule, and should be completed by
October 1, 1997. The pre-design of the research farm has been
completed. The Administration expects to turn-over the laboratory
office complex to Iowa State University when construction is completed,
as directed in statute.
centers of excellence
Mr. Skeen. In the past few years, USDA has proposed several Centers
of Excellence. Were any new centers established in fiscal years 1995,
1996 or 1997?
Response. In fiscal year 1995, ARS in collaboration with the Food
Safety and Inspection Service established an 1890's Center of
Excellence at the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, Princess Anne,
Maryland. In fiscal year 1996, funds were provided to ARS to establish
a similar Center of Excellence at Alcon State University in Lorman,
Mississippi, in collaboration with the Rural Business-Cooperative
Service. In fiscal year 1997, ARS was provided money to establish a
Center of Excellence at Delaware State University, Dover, Delaware.
NRCS established a center at Virginia State University in Petersburg,
Virginia; and NRCS and FS collaborated on a center of Florida A&M
University in Tallahassee, Florida.
Mr. Skeen. Where are all the ARS Centers of Excellence and how much
funding is provided for each is fiscal year 1997?
Response. The ARS 1890's Centers of Excellence funded in fiscal
year 1997 are the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Arkansas,
$373,000; University of Maryland Eastern Shore at Princess Anne,
Maryland, $246,000; Tennessee State University of McMinnville,
Tennessee, $491,000; Alcorn State University at Lorman, Mississippi,
$166,000; and Delaware State University at Dover, Delaware, $250,000.
Mr. Skeen. Are new centers proposed for fiscal year 1998?
Response. ARS is requesting $200,000 in fiscal year 1998 for a new
1890's Center of Excellence in Grazing Lands Management at Langston
University, Langston, Oklahoma; the Animal & Plant Health Inspection
Service is seeking funds to establish a Center of Excellence at
Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama, and the Foreign Agricultural
Service proposes to establish a Center of Excellence at North Carolina
A&T University in Greensboro, North Carolina.
crada's
Mr. Skeen. How many CRADA's does ARS have signed in operation?
Response. ARS has signed 671 CRADAs of which 263 are active.
Mr. Skeen. How much will ARS receive in monies from its CRADA's in
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. Incoming money for active CRADAs was $3.0 million actual
receipts in 1996. Based upon currently active CRADA budgets,
cooperators are scheduled to contribute $2.0 million in 1997 and $0.8
million in 1998. As new CRADAs are signed and/or amended these amounts
will increase.
Mr. Skeen. When a CRADA participant provides in-kind services, what
does ARS receive?
Response. Services include expertise by participation of the
cooperator's scientists and technicians in the project, and use of
cooperator's equipment and analytical processes. ARS also receives
access to confidential information, cooperator facilities, proprietary
products, and materials.
patents
Mr. Skeen. USDA enjoys sharing in the patents its research
generates. Do you have estimates on the total long-term value of these
patents?
Response. For a patent to have long-term value, it must be licensed
to a company which will produce and sell a product in the marketplace.
With a new technology, it requires a number of years for the licenses
to develop a commercially viable product. At the present time, ARS
earns about $2 million per year in royalty income. Assuming a median
royalty rate of 3 percent, this represents total annual sales of about
$67 million. Royalty income has been increasing each year; therefore,
we would expect to future value of ARS patents to increase.
Mr. Skeen. How many patents does USDA currently have and how many
are currently pending?
Response. USDA currently has 671 issued patents. An additional 420
patents are pending.
aflatoxin research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the research you have
underway on aflatoxin.
Response. Research in ARS is primarily directed toward prevention
of aflatoxin in corn, peanuts, cottonseed and tree nuts. Special
varieties of crops possessing natural resistance to Aspergillus flavus,
the fungus which produced aflatoxin, are being developed for use in
breeding commercial, high yielding crop lines that are not vulnerable
to the aflatoxin contamination. Alternatively, resistance is
bioengineered into the crops using genes known to encode specific mold
inhibitors. ARS is also testing aflatoxin non-producing strains of
Aspergillus flavus which are being applied to crop systems as
``biopesticides'' to outcompete and replace toxin-producing strains.
Other segments of the research identify and improve postharvest
agronomic and ecological factors, such as insects, and postharvest
handling procedures which minimize conditions that predispose crops to
aflatoxin contamination.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the agency's accomplishments in
aflatoxin research in recent years?
Response. Recent accomplishments of ARS include the identification
of sources of resistance corn, peanut and tree nut germplasm, which are
being used in breeding programs to produce aflatoxin resistant
commercial lines. Genes for biosynthesis of aflatoxin have been
localized on the fungal chromosome. Methods to regenerate cotton,
peanut and tree nut tissues transformed with genes for resistance to
aflatoxin have been developed. Aflatoxin contamination in cottonseed
and peanut was lowered through application of aflatoxin non-producing,
biocompetitive strains of Aspergillus flavus in small scale field
trials. A formulation of an aflatoxin non-producing strain of
Aspergillus flavus is now being tested in EPA-approved large scale
field trials on cotton.
Mr. Skeen. By location, please indicate the dollars and staff years
devoted to aflatoxin research in fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, CA.............................. $1,923,400 8.1 $1,813,200 6.7 $1,813,200 6.7
Dawson, GA.............................. 766,800 3.0 759,000 2.9 759,000 2.9
Tifton, GA.............................. 559,800 1.5 554,100 1.6 554,100 1.6
Peoria, IL.............................. 850,900 3.4 842,200 3.4 842,200 3.4
New Orleans, LA......................... 3,053,000 13.0 2,884,000 13.0 2,884,000 13.0
Mississippi State, MS................... 605,800 2.5 681,200 2.8 681,200 2.8
Headquarters............................ 885,700 .......... 876,800 .......... 876,800 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 8,645,400 31.5 8,410,500 30.4 8,410,500 30.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aquaculture research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the research you are
doing in connection with aquaculture research.
[The information follows:]
Auburn, AL--Diagnosis and control of diseases and parasites of
cultured fish.
Beltsville, MD--Aquaculture Information Center. Provides the public
with information on all aspects of aquaculture.
Albany, CA (Hilo, HI)--Tropical aquaculture feeds and culture
technology development.
New Orleans, LA--Improve flavor quality of farm-raised catfish.
Pine Bluff, AR--Aquaculture production and processing technology.
Stoneville, MS--Improve production efficiency, including breeding,
genetics, and endocrinology of catfish.
Kearneysville, WV--Water quality control and intensive culture of
fish.
College Station, TX--Food safety of catfish.
Stuttgart, AR--Research on therapeutics evaluation, health
management and culture systems for farm-raised fish.
Dover, DE (Wyndmoor, PA Worksite)--Food safety of farm-raised fish.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the agency's research accomplishments
in the field of aquaculture?
Response. ARS scientists conducting disease research at Auburn, AL
have demonstrated that some strains of commercial channel catfish have
resistance against columnaris disease. Columnaris disease, caused by
the bacterium Cytophaga columnaris, is responsible for widespread
mortality in channel catfish farms. Through a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement with Gold Kist, Inc., Inverness, MS, ARS
scientists at the Fish Diseases and Parasites Research Laboratory,
Auburn, AL demonstrated that some strains of channel catfish
selectively bred by Gold Kist were more resistant than other strains to
mortality from columnaris disease. Selective breeding of the resistant
strains should result in commercial catfish less susceptible to
columnaris disease. This could reduce losses to the disease by $10 to
$15 million annually.
ARS scientists at Auburn, AL have developed an experimental vaccine
to control enteric septicemia of commercial catfish. Edwardsiella
ictaluri causes the disease, enteric septicemia, in catfish. Losses
from the disease reduce catfish farm revenues by $25 million annually.
Scientists at the Fish Diseases and Parasites Research Laboratory,
Auburn, AL have developed a modified live vaccine to protect commercial
catfish. Protection from the vaccine lasts 6 months or more. While the
vaccine is presently applied through immersion of the fish in water,
the ARS scientists are working on feed-delivery of the vaccine for
catfish fingerling producers.
ARS scientists at Stuttgart, AR have shown that disease treatment
with copper sulfate poses no hazard to human consumers of cultivated
food fish. Copper sulfate has been effectively used for many years as a
treatment for waterborne parasitic, bacterial, and fungal diseases of
cultivated fish, but has never been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for use on food fish because of questions about
human food safety. Scientists at the National Aquaculture Research
Center, Stuttgart, AR, demonstrated that copper concentrations in fish
tissue remain unchanged when cultivated channel catfish are exposed to
levels of copper sulfate far in excess of concentrations required to
treat diseases. The FDA has accepted the results of the study as
demonstrating that the use of copper sulfate for treatment of waterbone
diseases of cultivated food fish presents no hazard to the health of
human consumers.
ARS scientists in Stoneville, MS have developed genetically
improved strains of channel catfish for commercial culture. Commercial
use of improved catfish germplasm, developed through an applied
selective breeding program, will dramatically improve production
efficiency in commercial catfish production. Scientists at the Catfish
Genetics Research Unit, Stoneville, MS, have evaluated and selected
strains of channel catfish for commercially important traits such as
growth, reproductive performance, processing characteristics, and
disease resistance. DNA markers, termed microsatellites, have been
isolated and characterized; the microsatellites are useful for
identifying and tracking genetically improved strains. These markers
will form the basis of a catfish genetic map that will improve the
efficiency of genetic selection in this species.
Canned bighead carp products developed by an ARS food technologist
at Pine Bluff, AR were evaluated by consumer taste panels and were
found to have a high level of acceptance.
ARS scientists in New Orleans, LA have developed highly sensitive
methods to detect off-flavor compounds in farm-raised catfish. The high
incidence of environment-derived off-flavors in farm-raised catfish has
consistently been identified as the most important production-related
problem in the catfish aquaculture industry. Scientists at the Southern
Regional Research Center have developed extraction and gas
chromatographic methods that can detect geosmin and MIB, the two most
important catfish off-flavor metabolites, at concentrations near the
theoretical limits of the most sensitive electronic sensors and equal
to the levels of human perception.
Scientists at Shepherdstown, WV have developed an improved
ultrasonic waste feed monitor through a cooperative arrangement with
the University of Mississippi's National Center for Physical Acoustics.
This device efficiently detects waste feed, while ignoring fecal
material, and represents an improvement over earlier technology
developed by these scientists. The device is currently being
commercialized through a California computer company.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for
aquaculture research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, by
location?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auburn, AL........................... $850,400 3.0 $841,800 3.0 $841,800 3.0
Pine Bluff, AR....................... 224,800 1.0 373,300 2.0 373,300 2.0
Stuttgart, AR........................ ........... .......... 1,235,600 4.0 1,235,600 4.0
Hilo, HI Oceanic Inst................ 1,628,900 .......... 1,612,400 .......... ........... ..........
New Orleans, LA...................... 803,900 2.5 759,400 2.4 759,400 2.4
Beltsville, MD....................... 143,700 .......... 142,800 .......... 142,800 ..........
==========================================================================
Stoneville, MS:
Warm Water Aquaculture........... 1,463,200 .......... 2,652,000 2.5 2,652,000 2.5
Other-In House................... 514,100 2.5 505,100 2.5 505,100 2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total MS....................... 1,977,300 2.5 3,157,100 5.0 3,157,100 5.0
==========================================================================
Wyndmoor, PA \1\..................... ........... .......... 250,000 1.0 250,000 1.0
Kearneysville, WV.................... 1,462,000 .......... 1,447,200 .......... 1,447,200 ..........
==========================================================================
Headquarters:
College Station, TX.............. 369,000 .......... 365,200 .......... 365,200 ..........
Stuttgart, AR Fish Farm Lab...... 1,097,500 .......... ........... .......... ........... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Headquarters............. 1,466,500 .......... 365,200 .......... 365,200 ..........
==========================================================================
Total.......................... 8,557,500 9.0 10,184,800 17.4 8,572,400 17.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dover, DE worksite.
biodegradable plastic
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the research you are
doing in connection with biodegradable plastic, by location.
Response. Development of totally biodegradable polymer materials
based on starch is a major emphasis of research at the National Center
for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR), Peoria, Illinois. At
NCAUR, scientists are developing new materials from starch, cereal
proteins, and other biodegradable polymers using extrusion, molding,
and jet-cooking processing technologies which have acceptable strength
and water resistance for many one-use consumer applications. At the
Western Regional Research Center (WRRC) in Albany, California, research
is focussing on development of biodegradable materials from wheat
carbohydrates and proteins. Development of films from another natural
biopolymer, pectin, is the focus of biodegradable research at the
Eastern Regional Research Center (ERRC) in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania.
Another program at Wyndmoor produces biodegradable polymers called
polyhydroxy alkanoates (PHA's) by microbial fermentation of commodity
fats and oils.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the agency's accomplishments in this
field of research?
Response. In cooperation with industrial CRADA partners, NCAUR
scientists at Peoria have developed blends of starch and biodegradable
polymers for use as agricultural mulch films and loose-fill packaging
foams. Molded articles with higher starch content than previous
technologies have also been developed. At WRRC, research conducted with
a CRADA partner led to a new technology for making biodegradable foams
from wheat starch. Containers made from this new material are being
studied for possible use in the fast-food industry. Two other
discoveries from CRADA-sponsored work on edible films include a natural
germicidal film for animal veterinary use and an edible coating for
pre-cut fruit that greatly extends shelf life. The work at ERRC has
resulted in two major patents on new materials made from pectin-starch
and pectin-polyvinyl alcohol blends. These materials are currently
being evaluated by industry for biodegradable packaging and biomedical
implant applications. ARS research results are widely utilized by
companies introducing biodegradable plastic materials and molded
products.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for
biodegradable plastic research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, CA.............................. $299,700 1.4 $661,500 2.7 $379,000 1.3
Peoria, IL.............................. 1,304,100 4.7 1,290,900 4.3 1,290,900 4.3
Wyndmoor, PA............................ 632,700 2.6 626,200 2.6 626,200 2.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 2,236,500 8.7 2,578,600 9.6 2,296,100 8.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
biotechnology research and development corporation
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the research underway
at the Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.
Response. The Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation
(BRDC) is engaged in research and development activities designed to
enhance the commercial opportunities for the United States'
agricultural products. This research focuses on developing commercial
opportunities to broaden the utilization of commodities and improve the
efficiency of production and quality of both plant and animal based
products.
In order to accomplish these goals, ``BRDC'' partners its private
sector shareholders and cooperators, and interested third parties, with
USDA/ARS and academic scientists in intermediate to near term R&D
projects that address industry's market needs.
Research endeavors carried out under the auspices of the original
``BRDC'' charter are directed toward developing new market
opportunities for commodity crops, new and safer, i.e., ``green'',
methods of pest control, more cost effective means of performing
biochemical and chemical transformations of raw materials derived from
crops, better methods of developing and controlling new genetic
characteristics in plants and animals, and new methods of detection and
elimination of agents impacting food safety and quality.
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the research carried out by the Animal
Health Consortium headquartered at Ames, Iowa.
Response. The animal health care activities are focused on
development of new biologicals, i.e., vaccines and therapeutics for
production animals and more efficient methods to deliver the materials.
There is also a substantial effort being devoted to refine methods for
performing molecular genetic manipulations on production animals as
well as studying genetic elements associated with either resistance or
susceptibility to disease and reproductive characters.
Mr. Skeen. Please discuss some of the Corporation's research
accomplishments.
Response. Some of ``BRDC's'' key achievements include, but are not
limited to the following:
Plant Technology:
1. Plant promoters useful for genetic engineering
A promoter is a genetic element that controls the expression of
genes. A simple analogy would be that a promoter is to a gene what the
switch is to a light, i.e. it can turn it off or on and regulate the
intensity. There are only a few broadly applicable promoters available
for use in genetic engineered plants and the great majority are tightly
protected by patents, privately owned and generally unavailable.
``BRDC'' scientists have developed one that ``BRDC'' has made available
to the entire plant biology industry. To date ``BRDC'' has entered into
twelve license agreements, and is negotiating three other agreements,
for the use of this promoter. If all the negotiations are successful
``BRDC'' will have licensed the technology to eighty percent of the
world's largest seed companies and plant biotechnology concerns.
``BRDC'' has also granted a free license to ARS by which ARS can make
the promoter available to any of its scientists for evaluation in their
research activities.
2. Starch polyester resins for biodegradables
For the past twenty years, scientists around the world have been
trying to develop biodegradable synthetic polymers at competitive
prices or by using starch or other ``natural'' polymers as additives to
synthetic polymers to make them biodegradable while retaining the
strength and mechanical properties of the synthetic polymers. Until
just recently the successes were polyethylene/starch composites that
resulted in polyethylene with holes, but at $10 per pound these
biopolymeric materials had no hope of commercial utility. Recently, Dow
Chemical, a ``BRDC'' shareholder, and ``BRDC'' scientists combined
their talents with synthetic and starch polymers, respectively, and
developed a brand new synthetic/starch polymeric material that is not
only biodegradable and has mechanical/strength properties comparable to
many common synthetic polymers, but is also less expensive than its
synthetic competitors. It is possible that a conversion to this new
material will occur not only because of environmental concerns but also
because of cost and profit considerations. ``BRDC'' and Dow Chemical
company are currently exploring a variety of commercialization options
including the possibility of niche market applications that could be
addressed by a manufacturing facility in central Illinois.
The new synthetic/starch polymers have been shown to be amenable to
thermoforming as blends, foaming, film blowing and being used as
laminates. These characteristics make the utility of materials almost
unlimited. A major benefit is that high volume everyday items, e.g.
cups, plates, eating utensils, plastic bags, wrapping films et., that
are biodegradable and compostable can be made from these materials. The
technology also will provide a new major market for corn and other
starch containing cereals.
At this time, the Dow Chemical Company is planning a new product
launch in 1997 and ``BRDC'' is involved in negotiations with a third
party that has proposed to start a new business, located in the Peoria
area, based on this technology. In addition, Dow and McDonald's
Corporation are discussing a joint development program to adapt the
technology to food service applications.
3. Pesticide encapsulation using agricultural commodities
Scientist at ARS' National Center for Agricultural Utilization
Research (NCAUR) and ``BRDC'' have encapsulated pest control agents in
formulations comprised of corn starch, casein, gluten and lignin. The
formulations have been shown to provide rainfastness, solar stability
and to result in lower required rates of application.
4. New methods for controlling postharvest diseases
``BRDC'' has been supporting research, at ARS' Appalachian Fruit
Research Station in Kearneysville, West Virginia, that is targeted to
controlling postharvest disease in commodity fruit species, including
most citrus fruits. The technology is based on exclusionary growth of a
nonpathogen organism. To date, early field trials have yielded very
promising results. ``BRDC'' and one of its shareholders are currently
negotiating a commercial license.
Animal Health Care Projects:
1. Validation of gene marker for litter size in domestic pigs
This technology has been exclusively licensed to the world's
largest producer of breeder pigs. In 1995, this producer used it to
test over 25,000 head of their breeder stock and paid ``BRDC'' more
than $100,000 in royalties. The company is currently evaluating the
option of making the test generally available. If they do, it is
estimated that it would be used to test more than 100,00 pigs annually.
The test predicts, in certain breeds of pigs, the size of litters
females will produce and is based on a polymorphic DNA marker that is
associated with the swine estrogen receptor gene. Positive
identification of high producing sows (11.5 vs. 10.0 live born per
litter) adds substantial value to the pig breeders and pork growers.
2. Production of chimeric/transgenic swine via embryonic stem cells
A stem cell is a cell that is undifferentiated and therefore has
the potential to become one of any of a myriad of cells. Embryonic stem
cells are derived from the very early embryo before cellular
differentiation begins and each of them has the theoretical capacity of
growing into a whole organism. In this instance, a single swine
embryonic stem cell could develop into an embryonic pig. ``BRDC'' and
the University of Illinois have filed patents, throughout the world, on
the ability to grow swine embryonic stem cells, genetically engineer
them and eventually produce genetically engineered ``designer'' pigs
from the cells. ``BRDC'' has licensed this technology to one of its
shareholders for the production of genetically engineered pigs that can
be used as organ donors in xenotransplantation (transplants between
species, e.g., pig to human). The purpose of xenotransplantation is to
provide a new source of organs for organ transplants in humans in order
to eliminate the current deficiency.
3. Construction of vaccines for bovine pneumonic pasteurellosis
Researchers at ARS' National Animal Disease Center (NADC) in Ames,
Iowa have developed a method by which they can produce deletion mutants
in Pasteurella sp. and Haemophilus sp. that exhibit growth attenuation
except under rigidly controlled laboratory conditions. These organisms
hold promise of being able to be used in the development of a live
vaccine for cattle shipping fever. The researchers are currently
collaborating with scientists from a ``BRDC'' shareholder is further
refine this technology. ``BRDC'' has exclusively licensed this
technology to that shareholder who anticipates introducing a new
product in late 1997 to early 1998.
Mr. Skeen. What private funds does the Corporation receive?
Response. In 1996, ``BRDC'' received $0.6 million from its
corporate participants, $0.2 million from the State of Illinois, and
$0.6 million in licensing revenue.
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a table for the record indicating a
funding history for the Corporation.
[The information follows:]
BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CALENDAR YEAR FUNDING HISTORY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997
Source of funding 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Proj.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal (USDA)...................................... $2,542.0 $2,542.0 $2,599.6 $2,599.6 $2,576.0 $2,576.0
Federal (AARC)...................................... ........ ........ 37.5 50.0 230.2 230.2
State (Illinois Dept of Agricultural................ 60.0 200.0 200.0 250.0 200.0 200.0
Corporate Participants.............................. 1,150.0 1,233.3 1,407.5 1,150.0 617.7 350.0
Royalties, interest, licensing fees and other income 103.1 49.5 166.2 200.0 679.8 700.0
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 3,855.1 4,024.8 4,410.8 4,249.6 4,303.7 4,056.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
blueberry/cranberry research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the research you are
doing in connection with blueberries and cranberries, by location.
[The information follows:]
Beltsville, MD--Blueberry germplasm evaluation, variety
development, and genome mapping; adaptation of blueberry root systems
to upland pH neutral soils; breeding of blueberries and improved
methods of disease control in blueberries and cranberries.
Corvallis, OR--Preservation and evaluation of germplasm.
Peoria, IL--Identification, evaluation, and development of natural
products to control postharvest fungal diseases of blueberries.
Poplarville, MS--Breeding, field testing, and introduction of new
blueberries.
Mr. Skeen. What is the need for this research?
Response. Blueberries, cranberries, and food products derived from
them are highly desired by consumers. Blueberries and cranberries are
important crops nationwide, and production is increasing in some areas,
such as the Pacific Northwest and the Southern United States. In
addition, production of these crops is suitable for small farms.
However, a variety of problems limit the production potential for
blueberries and cranberries in many areas. These include availability
of varieties adaptable to marginal soils and other variable
environmental conditions, appropriate cultural practices, suitable pest
management strategies during production and postharvest, and suitable
production and processing equipment. ARS addresses these needs through
its current research program activities.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the agency's accomplishments in this
field of research?
Response. In 1994, ARS jointly released, with the New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station, a new highbush blueberry cultivar
named Chandler. This variety produces good yields of high-quality
fruit.
A small group of proteins has been identified in blueberries that
may function in development of cold hardiness. The genes for these
proteins can be used to improve the adaptability of blueberries and
other small fruit crops to cold environments.
A genetic map of blueberry has been constructed allowing genes
involved in the control or dormancy and cold hardiness development to
be located. Genetic markers near these genes will allow these traits to
be more easily followed during breeding.
Molecular methods have been developed for improved virus detection
in blueberries and cranberries.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for
blueberry/cranberry research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. By location, what is the funding and staff for blueberry/
cranberry research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peoria, IL................................. $48,100 0.2 $47,600 0.2 $47,600 0.2
Beltsville, MD............................. 1,114,400 3.9 1,103,100 3.9 1,103,100 3.9
Poplarville, MS............................ 435,200 2.0 430,800 2.0 430,800 2.0
Corvallis, OR.............................. 510,900 1.1 756,500 2.1 691,500 2.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 2,108,600 7.2 2,338,000 8.2 2,273.000 8.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brucellosis research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with brucellosis research, by location.
Response. The purpose of the ARS bovine brucellosis program,
conducted at the National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa, is to:
(1) evaluate and modify brucellosis vaccines for the protection of
cattle, bison and elk against infection with Brucella abortus; (2)
improve existing diagnostic tests for brucellosis in cattle, bison, and
elk; (3) develop rapid strategies to trace the source of brucellosis
outbreaks; and (4) identify genes that are involved in the ability of
Brucellae to cause disease and use this information to develop improved
vaccines.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the Agency's accomplishments in this
field of research?
Response. The National Animal Disease Center has demonstrated that
a new vaccine strain of Brucella abortus, strain RB51, is effective in
protecting cattle against brucellosis. Efficacy of the RB51 vaccine is
being tested in bison. The RB51 vaccine has been licensed by veterinary
biologics, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The advantage of
using RB51 is that it does not induce antibodies that react in current
serologic tests used to detect natural infection. A patent was issued
to cover a new rapid DNA diagnostic assay, and this technology is now
being tested by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Efforts
are being focused on developing improved vaccines and vaccine
strategies for use in bison and elk.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for
brucellosis research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. The funding and scientific staff for brucellosis research
for fiscal year 1996 was $2,453,300 and five scientists. For fiscal
years 1997 and 1998, estimated funding is $2,224,500 with five
scientific staff in each year. The brucellosis program is located at
the National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa.
canola research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with canola research, by location?
Response. ARS research at Peoria, Illinois is concerned with
evaluation of canola germplasm for physical and chemical properties of
oil to develop high quality, value-added products.
Mr. Skeen. What is the need for this research? What are the uses of
this oil? What is the domestic usage and the amount imported?
Response. Evaluation of canola germplasm is needed to provide
materials for developing varieties adapted to climatic growing regions
in the United States. Evaluation of the performance properties and
stability of canola oil provides information needed by the food
industry for the commercial use of this new edible oil. Canola oil is
primarily a cooking and frying oil used directly by consumers. The food
industry interest in canola oil stems from it having the lowest
saturated fatty acid content among the vegetables oils. Domestic use of
canola was 899 million pounds in 1995/1996, of which 558 million pounds
was imported.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for canola
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tifton, GA................................. $73,700 0.5 ......... .......... ......... ..........
Peoria IL.................................. 99,300 0.5 $147,400 0.7 $147,400 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................... 173,000 1.0 147,400 0.7 147,400 0.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
citrus root weevil
Mr. Skeen. The Committee has provided additional funds for citrus
root weevil research. What is your plan of work to control and
eradicate this pest? Describe what kind of damage this pest causes and
any dollar estimates of losses due to damages from this pest.
Response. In August of 1993, a Diaprepes Task Force was organized
to help coordinate research and action activities to control this pest.
The task force is still quite active and is composed of representatives
from ARS, University of Florida, Florida Division of Plant Industry,
commodity and grower groups, and the pest control industry. The task
force completed and implemented a research and action plan in January
1995. Some of the major goals of the action plan are to strengthen
research through increased cooperation within the research
establishment, and develop and implement effective control methods. At
the current time there are no technologies on-line to eradicate this
pest and the task force has not included such a strategy in the
research and action plan. The current aim is to contain the pest,
minimize production losses and damage, and mitigate the problem with an
adoptable, economic, and environmentally-sound IPM system. No effective
soil pesticides are currently available for the more critical strategy
of killing or suppressing the larvae. A number of control strategies
are currently being tested by ARS and the University of Florida, and
include monitoring for the pest, as well as the use of traps, nematode
applications, sanitation procedures, attractants and pheromones,
insecticidal fungi, and select chemical insecticides.
The Diaprepes root weevil not only attacks citrus, but also many
other commercial crops including sugarcane, ornamental plants, yucca,
papaya, sweetpotato, cotton, and peppers. The larvae of the pest feed
on the roots of the citrus tree, eventually killing the tree. Adults of
the insect also harm the leaves through their feeding. Damage in
Florida is increasing and has reached over $75 million each year.
Mr. Skeen. Which laboratories will be involved in the research?
Response. The U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory located in
Orlando, Florida, is currently undertaking this research effort in
partnership with the University of Florida, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, Citrus Research and Education Center, Lake
Alfred, Florida.
citrus tristeza virus
Mr. Skeen. Citrus tristeza virus is causing considerable damage to
plants in Florida. For the record, describe what kind of damage is
occurring and any dollar value losses that are estimated from this
pest.
Response. Citrus tristeza virus (CTV) has been present in Florida
for decades. In the 1980s, severe decline strains of CTV reappeared in
Florida and have since spread across the state, killing trees on the
susceptible sour orange rootstock. About 20 percent of Florida's orange
trees remain on sour orange. Various strategies have provided
reasonably effective disease control for trees on other rootstocks.
However, the brown citrus aphid (BCA) was found in Florida for the
first time in 1995 and within a year or two is expected to appear
throughout the state. Because the BCA is a more efficient vector than
other aphid species, and because it can transmit severe stem-pitting
strains that the others cannot, a greatly increased risk of loss now
exists, especially for trees on sour orange rootstock. Although stem-
pitting strains are now rare in Florida, with the arrival of the BCA,
they are expected to become more prevalent. These strains attack citrus
regardless of rootstock.
Current annual losses are estimated to be about 400,000 trees with
a value of $40-$60 million. Losses over the next 20 years are expected
to be about $400 million for the trees on sour orange rootstock. Any
loss due to stem pitting strains on other rootstocks would be
additional.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staffing for the
tristeza virus research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno, CA................................. $470,000 .0 $466,300 .0 $466,300 .0
Orlando, FL................................ 582,900 1.5 572,400 1.5 572,400 1.5
Beltsville, MD............................. 30,000 0.1 46,100 0.1 46,100 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 1,082,900 2.6 1,084,800 2.6 1,084,800 2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
germ plasm
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for germ
plasm facilities for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. The estimated ARS funding and scientist staff for the
major plant germplasm repositories and research facilities will be
provided for the record.
[Page 79--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please list the germplasm collections
that are maintained by ARS.
Response. The information on location-specific germplasm
collections maintained by ARS in cooperation with the State and private
sector will be provided for the record.
Davis, CA.--almond, fig, grape, kiwi, mulberry, olive, persimmon,
pistachio, pomegranate, stone fruit, and walnut.
Riverside, CA.--citrus and related genera, and dates.
Salinas, CA.--lettuce genetic stocks.
Fort Collins, CO.--base seed collection of major economic crops.
Washington, D.C.--woody landscape genera.
Miami, FL.--annona, avocado, mango, passiflora, sugarcane.
Griffin, GA.--cowpea, melon, peanut, pepper, sorghum, and
sweetpotato.
Tifton, GA.--pearl millet.
Hilo, HI.--acerola cherry, atemoya, breadfruit, carambola, guava,
litchi, macadamia, papaya, passion-fruit, peach palm, pili nut,
pineapple, and rambutan.
Ames, IA.--alfalfa, cabbage, maize, melon, sugarbeet, sunflower,
and soybean genetic stocks.
Aberdeen, ID.--barley, barley genetic stocks, oat, rice, rye,
triticale, and wheat.
Urbana, IL.--maize genetic stocks and soybean.
Columbia, MO.--triticale and wheat genetic stocks.
Oxford, NC.--tobacco.
Fargo, ND.--durum wheat genetic stocks and flax.
Geneva, NY.--apple, brassicas, celery, sour cherry, hardy grape,
squash, and tomato.
Corvallis, OR.--blackberry, blueberry, cranberry, current, filbert,
gooseberry, hop, mint, pear, raspberry, and strawberry.
Mayaguez, PR.--bamboo, banana, Brazil nut, cacao, coffee, mango,
and plantain.
College Station, TX.--cotton and cotton genetic stocks, sorghum
genetic stocks, chestnut, hickory, and pecan.
Logan, UT.--range grass collection.
Pullman, WA.--alfalfa, bean, chickpea, clover, grasses, lentil,
onion, pea and pea genetic stocks, and safflower.
Madison, WI.--potato.
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please list major germplasm collections
in the world and their locations.
Response. Several countries maintain large and diverse major
collections, including Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Ethiopia,
Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, The
Netherlands, the Nordic countries, Peru, Poland, and Russia. Large,
crop-specific collections are also held at international agricultural
research centers of the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in developing countries. Major crop-
specific germplasm collections and their locations will be provided for
the record.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crop Location and organization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bean............................. Cali, Colombia--International Center
for Tropical Agriculture.
Cassava.......................... Cali, Colombia--International Center
for Tropical Agriculture and
............................... Ibadan, Nigeria--International
Institute for Tropical Agriculture.
Chickpea......................... Hyderabad, India--International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics.
Cowpea........................... Ibadan, Nigeria--International
Institute for Tropical Agriculture.
Maize............................ El Batan, Mexico--International
Center for Maize and Wheat
Improvement.
Peanut........................... Hyderabad, India--International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics.
Pearl Millet..................... Hyderabad, India--International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics.
Pidgeonpea....................... Hyderabad, India--International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics.
Potato........................... Lima, Peru--International Potato
Center.
Rice............................. Los Banos, Philippines--International
Rice Research Institute.
Sorghum.......................... Hyderabad, India--International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics.
Sweetpotato...................... Lima, Peru-International Potato
Center.
Wheat............................ El Batan, Mexico--International
Center for Maize and Wheat
Improvement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
grape phylloxera
Mr Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the research you are
doing in connection with grape phylloxera, by location.
Response. At Davis, California, research is conducted on the cause
of the death of newly planted phylloxera-resistant rootstocks in young
replanted vineyards. This work is focused on the role of grapevine
viruses and water mold fungi. At Fresno, California, grape rootstocks
with resistance to phylloxera and other soilborne pests are being
developed by conventional breeding and evaluated. Using biotechnology,
new genes providing resistance to soilborne pests are also being
introduced into grapes.
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the need for this research.
Response. Grape phylooxera, also known as the grapevine root louse,
is a root-sucking insect pest of grape plants. Until recently, this
pest did not cause significant economic losses in California because of
the general resistance of the most commonly used grape rootstock. In
the late 1980's a new strain of phylloxera appeared which overcomes
this resistance and kills or severely debilitates the vines. Economic
losses have been particularly severe in the coastal wine-growing
regions of California. The pest is now widespread in California,
including the interior valleys, and the Pacific Northwest. Affected
plants must be removed and vineyards replanted. Grape rootstocks
resistant to phylloxera are available, but they suffer other
shortcomings, such as susceptibility to plant viruses and soilborne
diseases.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding for grape phylloxera
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years; funds--
Location -----------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis, CA................................. $58,100 $36,000 $36,000
Fresno, CA................................ 188,600 137,200 137,200
-----------------------------
Total................................... 246,700 173,200 173,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. The grape and wine industry are one of the largest
agricultural value crops in the U.S. What percentage of the overall
agriculture value is grape products?
Response. Grape cash receipts represent 1.4 percent of all farming.
The farm gate value of the crop is estimated to be $2.2 billion with
value added in excess of $7 billion.
grape virology research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with grape virology research, by location.
Response. ARS conducts grape virology research at Davis,
California. The research involves identifying the causal agents,
describing disease spread, and devising control method for viruses and
graft-transmissible pathogens affecting grapevines. This research
effort also includes developing specific assays for the rapid detection
and identification of the pathogens. Sensitivities of various
commercial grape rootstocks to viruses and graft-transmitted pathogens
are being investigated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the need for this research?
Response. Currently, large acreages of vineyards are being
established with various scions grated onto several kinds of grape
rootstocks of different Vitis species. Often the scion sources appear
healthy, but in fact, are infected with one or more (latent) disease
agents that eventually move into the rootstock and cause general plant
declines. The sensitivities of these rootstock to specific viruses are
unknown. Also, the identities of the latent disease agents remain
unknown due, in part, to the time-consuming assay procedures currently
in use. Improved methods are needed to more rapidly and reliably
identify sources of both rootstock and scionwood free of such latent
viruses.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the agency's accomplishments in this
field of research?
Response. Improved purification procedures for grape leafroll-
associated closteroviruses (GLRV) have been developed. Highly reactive
antisera against GLRV types II and IV have been produced. Cooperative
research is under way to develop anti-grape fanleaf virus (GFLV)-
resistant rootstocks using GFLV genes.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for grape
virology research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis, CA.................................... $210,700 1.0 $36,000 0.1 $36,000 0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grasshopper and mormon cricket
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the research you are
doing in connection with research on grasshoppers and Mormon crickets.
Response. The ARS Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
in Sidney, Montana, conducts a research program on grasshopper and
Mormon cricket control which focuses on environmentally compatible,
economical, and publicly-acceptable control technology. The scientists
conducting this research were recently relocated from Bozeman to
Sidney, Montana, which is situated more closely to major grasshopper
problem areas. The research now being conducted at Sidney includes the
use of biological control--especially with microbial agents--reduced
pesticide use through baits in place of sprays, and grazing systems
research. Additionally, ARS scientists working on grasshoppers and
Mormon crickets have greatly increased the knowledge of general biology
and population dynamics of these pests culminating in the development
of ``Hopper'', an expert management advice system for ranchers.
Taxonomic support for the program is provided by the Systematic
Entomology Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, which helps to identify
potential natural parasites as biological control agents. The overall
ARS Integrated Pest Management Program has been highly coordinated with
the 5-year interagency Grasshopper Integrated Pest Management Project
begun in 1987 and managed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS). A Grasshopper Integrated Pest Management Project 2-
year technology transfer plan was developed, following the completion
of the 5-year Grasshopper Integrated Pest Management Project, for
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 and implemented by APHIS. The grasshopper
IPM program was transferred to the farmers and ranchers for adoption in
FY 1996. Technology developed by ARS is an integral part of the
program, which includes the Hopper decision support system, baits, and
microbial biocontrol agents. The laboratory is continuing to develop
new survey and sampling techniques, forecasting tools, decision aids,
and biological control agents for integration of additional pest
management options into farm/ranch and crop/ranch operations.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding for grasshopper and
Mormon cricket research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
[Fiscal year funds]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney, MT.......................... $697,600 $690,600 $690,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
alcohol consumption
Mr. Skeen. In the past several years there have been several media
events that discussed what is known as the ``French Paradox.'' This
generally shows an equation between moderate alcohol consumption and
some health benefits. The Committee asked the Department to support
research efforts in this area. What is the status of this research?
Response. In 1993, research to scientifically validate the reported
beneficial health effects of alcohol consumption was initiated at the
USDA/ARS Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville,
Maryland. Findings obtained thus far indicate that although moderate
regular alcohol consumption does not beneficially or adversely affect
metabolic rate, it improves body fat metabolism, helps in weight
control, and beneficially changes some risk factors associated with
cardiovascular disease. The study of the relationship between moderate
alcohol consumption and some health benefits are continuing; it is
planned that an additional study will be conducted in 1997. This study
will examine the effect of pattern of consumption of alcohol on
bringing forth beneficial outcomes, and whether alcohol consumption
affects antioxidant status and oxidative stress which can alter the
susceptibility to some chronic diseases including heart disease and
cancer.
Mr. Skeen. How much money is dedicated to this effort and where is
the research being conducted?
Response. In fiscal year 1997, $560,900 has been dedicated to study
the health effects of alcohol. The study will involve human volunteers
and will be conducted at the ARS Human Research Center at Beltsville.
Mr. Skeen. The Committee has asked the ARS to develop a working
strategy to look into the potential benefits of alcohol use and
cardiovascular health and longevity. Please describe the strategy.
Response. In addition to findings which suggest that moderate
alcohol ingestion is helpful in preventing cardiovascular disease, it
has been observed that individuals that consume alcohol regularly are
generally leaner than those individuals that abstain from alcohol,
being learner promotes longevity. Thus, over the next two years studies
will be performed that will address three general questions. First,
does the pattern of drinking affect the energy value, or amount of
calories, derived from alcohol? In other words, is the energy value of
alcohol different for individuals who binge drink than for individuals
who consume alcohol regularly in moderate amounts? The answer to this
question will provide intake guidance for obtaining beneficial effects
from alcohol. Second, what is alcohol replacing in the diet? Third,
does alcohol consumption affect the breakdown of other dietary
components in energy? Based on the finding that the energy value of
alcohol is near its expected value, to be lean, consumers of alcohol
must be displacing some of their diet with alcohol, or alcohol is
affecting the conversion of other food into energy. The determination
of what is being replaced by alcohol and whether alcohol affects energy
production most likely will help in the understanding of why moderate
intakes of alcohol may be beneficial.
guayule
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the research you are
going in connection with guayule, by location.
Response. ARS research on guayule addresses both production and
utilization of the guayule plant. At Phoenix, Arizona and Fresno,
California, we are developing varieties with improved agronic
properties, salinity and disease tolerance, and cost-effective
production management practices. At Albany, California, we are
conducting biotechnology research to identify key enzymes and
structural proteins required for latex synthesis and subsequent genetic
engineering to enhance latex yield. Collaborative research between
Phoenix and Albany is concerned with development of extraction and
isolation procedures, and preparation of the guayule latex for product
evaluation.
Mr. Skeen. Please describe any recent accomplishments.
Response. Success in increasing the yield of guayule rubber and
coproducts through breeding and improved agronomic practices continues.
Plant yields are now 200 percent higher than those obtained from
standard USDA lines dated to the 1950's. Success in commercialization
of the process developed for extraction of the hypoallergenic guayule
latex continues. Guayule latex unlike Helvea rubber latex does not
induce allergies. This is particularly important to the medical,
dental, and health care workers who may become severely allergic over
time to Helvea latex. A patent has been issued for the process of
guayule latex isolation and issuance of an exclusive license for this
process has been announced in the Federal Register.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for guayule
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix, AZ................................ $233,700 0.9 $231,300 0.9 $231,300 0.9
Albany, CA................................. 174,700 0.4 288,300 0.7 288,300 0.7
Fresno, CA................................. 48,700 .......... 48,100 .......... ......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 457,100 1.3 567,700 1.6 519,600 1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
africanized bees
Mr. Skeen. Would you please provide for the record a map similar to
the one provided last year which shows the advance of the Africanized
bee, by year?
Response. I submit to you a map that shows South America, Central
America, and the Southwestern United States and how the Africanized
honey bee has advanced by year.
[Page 84--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. Would you please describe in detail the research you are
doing in connection with Africanized bees?
Response. ARS supports USDA and State action and regulatory
programs and the concerns of the beekeeping industry through
Africanized honey bee research at four major laboratories. The Bee
Research Laboratory at Beltsville, Maryland, develops new techniques
for Africanized honey bee identification and genetic characterization
of honey bee populations in the New World, and provides authoritative
identification services and training for regulatory agencies. A
polymerase chain reaction-based method has been developed to identify
Africanized bee populations from stingers collected from victims. This
method assists regulatory and public health agencies to monitor and
control this behaviorally aggressive species. A DNA fingerprinting
method is helping in the assessment of effects of Africanization on
honey bee stocks and in the evaluation of effectiveness of regulatory
efforts to control Africanized honey bee populations. At the Honey Bee
Breeding, Genetics and Physiology Research Laboratory in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, research emphasis is given to the development of barrier and
control technologies and manipulation of the genetic process of
Africanization. Research at the Honey Bee Research Laboratory, Weslaco,
Texas, focuses on the management of European and Africanized honey
bees, monitoring changes in feral honey bee populations, negating the
impact of Africanization on pollination of fruit and vegetable crops,
and the development of methods for personal protection from Africanized
honey bee stinging incidents, and monitoring mite and disease
resistance. At the Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, Tucson, Arizona,
scientists are developing new bait hive technologies and improved
methods for monitoring the process of Africanization in arid
environments and for destroying Africanized honey bees in high-usage
public lands. They have transferred the personal protection technology
to professionals and the general public. For example, they have
developed techniques for rescue workers to intervene in major stinging
incidents.
Mr. Skeen. Would you please provide for the record the funding
assigned to the Africanized bee program, by location.
Response. During fiscal year 1997, funding for Africanized honey
bee research at the four honey bee research locations is: Baton Rouge,
Louisiana--$748,300; Tucson, Arizona--$373,300; Weslaco, Texas--
$406,200; and Beltsville, Maryland--$332,200. Total funds expended for
Africanized honey bee research amounts to $1,860,000 which is 41
percent of the total honey bee research effort.
Mr. Skeen. What developments have occurred in the Africanized bee
program during the past 12 months?
Response. Africanized honey bees (AHB) queens continue to enter
domestic hives in increasing numbers. This is jeopardizing commercial
beekeeping, pollination, and the production of mite resistant stocks.
Two AHB apiaries were established for research to develop colony
management and other strategies for coping with AHB. AHB queens have a
shorter development time than European honey bees (EHB) such that, at
the time of queen replacement, AHB queens emerge first and mate with
drones before the queens of European honey bees emerge. This ``locks''
AHB traits into the subsequent colony populations. This information is
now being used in AHB management studies.
Surveys indicate Varroa and tracheal mites have practically
decimated feral bees and are responsible for declining domestic honey
bee colonies. Feral colony losses have reached 65-70 percent.
Preliminary studies indicate that AHB exhibit resistance to parasitic
mite species.
Feral population monitoring in northeast Mexico and south Texas
continue to show the Mexican population as 100 percent Africanized, and
the Rio Grande Valley population hovering between 70-80 percent
Africanized, depending on season. Only six new counties in Texas were
added to the quarantine area, primarily in central and west Texas.
Reasons for the slowing of the spread may be climate or the Varroa
mite. Hybridization of AHB with EHB is extensive in Arizona, with
hybrids retaining aggressive behavior of AHB.
Investigations of Africanized-bee biology indicate that AHB were
not immune to a bacterial disease common in North America. Current
studies are evaluating susceptibility to Varroa and tracheal mites.
Also, baseline data are being collected for a study of the process of
Africanization of bees existing in a temperate zone. Research into
control methods demonstrated that two novel methods of abating feral
Africanized colonies can be used by commercial queen breeders in
Africanized areas to enhance the quality of queens they produce.
ARS scientists have developed a homeowners guide to safe honey bee
swarm control. Africanized honey bees swarm frequently and attack
humans and animals while vigorously defending their territory. In areas
colonized by Africanized bees, there is an increasing need to remove
unwanted honey bee swarms before they become permanent inhabitants of
cavities within the walls of structures such as homes, schools, and
nursing home facilities. Swarm removal can be hazardous. Even though
use of beekeepers or exterminator services is recommended, these are
expensive. Moreover, many people living in remote areas are unable to
access these services. A video was produced at the ARS Carl Hayden Bee
Research Center in cooperation with the University of Arizona, Tucson,
which provides a do-it-yourself alternative by demonstrating how
homeowners can use common items of apparel for personal safety and use
a solution of dishwashing detergent to destroy unwanted honey bee
swarms. ARS scientists are developing repellents against AHB.
ARS scientists in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in cooperation with
National Park Service in Big Bend National Park in west Texas, have
developed baiting procedures recently highlighted in a ``Nature''
television program and in an ARS manual. The bait is designed to
eliminate AHB problem colonies that cannot be treated directly because
they are remote or inaccessible. These procedures provide detailed
information for program development, training and direct mitigation of
nuisance honey bees on Federal lands. Land managers can use this manual
as a guide in developing strategies to cope with Africanized honey
bees.
honey bee
Mr. Skeen. What resources do you spend on honey bee research?
Response. In fiscal year 1997, funding for honey bee research will
be $4,720,000. This excludes funds for ``other pollinating insects'' in
the amount of $1,193,100. The ARS total bee and pollination research
budget in fiscal year 1997 amounts to $5,913,100.
Mr. Skeen. Where are the research activities carried out?
Response. ARS has active honey bee research programs at Tucson,
Arizona; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Beltsville, Maryland; and Weslaco,
Texas.
Mr. Skeen. What specific research is being conducted at the
Weslaco, Texas, laboratory?
Response. The honey bee research program at Weslaco, Texas,
involves five research activities. The first involves the development
of reliable methods to detect and quantify Africanization of managed
and feral honey bee (HB) colonies and its impact on their parasitic
mite load. The second activity is the management of the growing varroa
mite resistance to pyrethroid chemicals, and development and testing of
new chemicals and application methods for mite control. The third
activity is managing pestiferous Africanized honey bees (AHB) in high-
usage public lands. The fourth activity is to manage AHB and their
hybrids for pollination and honey production in the Rio Grande Valley;
and the fifth is to establish a breeding program to develop improved
domestic (European) HB stock(s) by incorporating desirable genes of
AHB, such as its resistance to mites and diseases.
ir-4 research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the IR-4 program and
the ARS role under that program.
Response. The IR-4 program is a cooperative program among Federal,
State, and Industry scientists to register minor uses of pesticides.
Major research components to develop performance and residue data lie
within USDA-ARS, USDA-CSREES, the State agricultural experiment
stations, and private industry. A staff headquartered at Rutgers
University maintains files, tracks projects, prepares research
protocols, and develops petitions for submittal to regulatory agencies
and the chemical registrants. The program is guided by an
Administrative Advisory Committee and a Technical Committee. Dr.
Knipling represents ARS on the Advisory Committee and one of our
scientists is Chairman of the Technical Committee. In addition, ARS
conducts field experiments to determine pesticide efficacy and performs
laboratory analyses to determine pesticide residues.
Mr. Skeen. How are the IR-4 projects selected and how will this
research be coordinated with the new initiative for IPM?
Response. Minor use needs are identified by growers, researchers,
and extension specialists. The researchable needs are prioritized at
National IR-4 workshops. Annual selection of tentative projects are
made at regional meetings by the IR-4 State and ARS liaison
representatives. These selections are based on the priorities
established by workshops and by regional and national needs and
availability of scientific expertise and resources to conduct the
studies. The States and ARS coordinate the projects at a national
meeting each year.
The judicious use of chemicals is an integral part of IPM programs.
IPM chemical needs are identified and prioritized together with other
IR-4 needs. In addition, IR-4 is assisting in the registration of
biopesticides useful for IPM programs. To help coordinate the IPM-
related activities, the National Director of IR-4 serves on the CSREES
Pest Management Strategies Subcommittee.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for IR-4
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salinas, CA............................. $140,900 .......... $139,500 .......... $139,500 ..........
Washington, DC.......................... 78,200 .......... 77,400 .......... 77,400 ..........
Tifton, GA.............................. 644,800 0.2 638,300 0.2 638,300 0.2
Urbana, IL.............................. 10,200 .......... 10,200 .......... 10,200 ..........
Beltsville, MD.......................... 373,400 1.8 369,900 1.8 458,500 1.8
Wooster, OH............................. 102,600 .......... 101,600 .......... 101,600 ..........
Corvallis, OR........................... 61,800 .......... 61,200 .......... 61,200 ..........
Charleston, SC.......................... 62,800 0.2 62,200 0.2 62,200 0.2
Weslaco, TX............................. 112,500 0.2 111,400 0.2 111,400 0.2
Prosser, WA............................. 89,500 .......... 88,600 .......... .......... ..........
Yakima, WA.............................. 449,700 0.1 445,200 0.1 445,200 0.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 2,126,400 2.5 2,105,500 2.5 2,105,500 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. What is the total USDA budget for IR-4 for fiscal years
1996, 1997, and 1998 by agency and by program?
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Agency -----------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS........................... $2,126,400 $2,105,500 $2,105,500
CSREES........................ 6,186,000 6,186,000 11,186,000
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 8,312,400 8,291,500 13,291,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jointed goat grass control research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with jointed goat grass control, by location.
Response. At Pullman, Washington, research involves (1) integrated
management, including crop rotations and herbicides, to control the
weed while maintaining profitability and minimizing soil erosion; (2)
population dynamics and economic thresholds of jointed goatgrass; (3)
identification and utilization of traits that increase wheat
competitiveness against the weed; and (4) biocontrol of the weed using
soil bacteria. At Akron, Colorado, research mainly involves the effect
of cultural management practices and crop rotations on control and
infestation levels in dryland wheat. Scientists at both locations
participate in regional projects on the biology and control of winter
annual grasses in dryland winter wheat, and they have cooperative
research projects with scientists at Washington State University,
Colorado State University, and other universities in the West and High
Plains.
Mr. Skeen. What is the need for this research?
Response. Jointed goatgrass has become a serious pest of winter
wheat in the Great Plains and western U.S. It infests an estimated
5,000,000 acres and is spreading at a rate of at least 50,000 acres per
year. The plant is genetically related to wheat, and no herbicides
control it selectively without damage to the wheat crop. No
economically feasible cleaning methods are available to remove the seed
from the wheat grain. Dockage charges for presence of jointed goatgrass
in harvested wheat are steep, so that realistic management plans must
reduce its level to virtually zero. For control of jointed goatgrass,
farmers must cultivate their fields extensively, creating soil erosion
problems, or rotate into less profitable crops. Seeds are fairly long-
lived in the soil, so at least 4 years in a crop rotation cycle are
needed to eliminate serious infestations. Direct costs to wheat growers
from jointed goatgrass are estimated at $35,000,000 in yield losses and
$10,000,000 in penalties for grain quality.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for jointed
goat grass control research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akron, CO............................... $104,700 0.3 $136,000 0.5 $136,000 0.5
Pullman, WA............................. 147,900 0.7 146,400 0.7 146,400 0.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 252,600 1.0 282,400 1.2 282,400 1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kenaf
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with kenaf, by location.
Response. ARS has kenaf research underway at seven locations. At
Weslaco and College Station, Texas, Lane, Oklahoma, and Stoneville,
Mississippi, ARS scientists conduct variety improvement and agronomic
research to devise production systems appropriate to the particular
area and climate. At Stoneville, ARS scientists cooperate with
scientists at Mississippi State University to develop applications and
markets for kenaf and the development of harvesting and fiber
processing systems. At Athens, Georgia, research focuses on
biotechnological ways of separating kenaf fiber from the stalk of the
plant. Research projects in New Orleans, Louisiana, and in several
small projects funded from Headquarters, are developing technologies
for the processing of kenaf fiber into non-woven mats and the
incorporation of the fiber into resin-reinforced fiber board.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the agency's accomplishments in this
field of research?
Response. Through the agronomic work at Weslaco and College
Station, Texas, Lane, Oklahoma, and Stoneville/Mississippi State
University, Mississippi, management of the crop has been refined with
particular emphasis to the region where kenaf is grown. ARS and ARS-
cooperator research has demonstrated commercial targets for kenaf
products: oil spill adsorbent, drilling mud component, greenhouse and
mulch growth medium, insulation paneling and as a component in
reinforced thermoplastics for automobile door and head liners.
Additional studies in Mississippi show kenaf's potential as a concrete
aggregate. ARS scientists are exploring kenaf's potential in the
bioremediation of selenium- and boron-contaminated soils in
California's San Joaquin Valley. Core Products Co., Mississippi, is
marketing kenaf core for animal litter. ARS in Athens, Georgia, is
exploring novel biotechnological ways to separate the fiber component
from kenaf.
Mr. Skeen. Originally, this research was promoted as a means to
develop a new product that would be used to replace imported newsprint.
To what extent has this occurred?
Response. It is unlikely that kenaf will capture a major share of
the newsprint market in the foreseeable future. Major newsprint
producers are committed to wood feedstock, and a declining market for
newsprint is compounded by major recycling efforts. Nevertheless, there
is a growing ``green'' market for high quality unbleached bond paper
made from kenaf. One entrepreneur in Texas is convinced that success
with kenaf in the paper market requires a vertically-integrated effort,
from production through papermaking; he and his investors project such
a facility in south Texas, backed by the planting of several thousand
acres of kenaf in that region. Experience in Mississippi shows that
there is a more ready market for kenaf core materials than for the
fiber--an ironic reversal of the product/byproduct concept associated
with this crop.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for kenaf
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athens, GA.............................. $104,200 0.5 $103,100 0.5 $103,100 0.5
New Orleans, LA......................... 131,900 0.3 146,600 0.3 146,600 0.3
Stoneville, MS.......................... 496,600 0.1 491,600 0.1 .......... ..........
Lane, OK................................ 152,300 1.0 150,800 1.0 150,800 1.0
College Station, TX..................... 38,100 0.1 37,700 0.1 .......... ..........
Weslaco, TX............................. 358,700 1.1 355,000 1.1 .......... ..........
Headquarters............................ 369,600 .......... 106,900 .......... .......... ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 1,651,400 3.1 1,391,700 3.1 400,500 1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
locoweed research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with locoweed research, by location.
Response. ARS research on locoweed is conducted at Logan, Utah. The
research objectives are to identify the toxic effects of locoweed on
livestock and to develop improved diagnostic, therapeutic, and
management techniques to minimize the pathologic and economic effects
of locoweed intoxication. Specific research projects include
determining the conditions of locoweed poisoning, the doses and
duration of poisoning that result in economically important locoweed
damage, the clearance rates of swainsonine (the locoweed toxin) from
animal tissues and products, and effects on the reproduction and immune
systems of livestock. Additional studies include development of
immunodiagnostic techniques, such as ELISA, to better identify and
monitor intoxication, and potential therapies, including vaccine
development and toxin-binding compounds. Current work delineates the
many locoweed-induced changes in reproduction, the immune system, and
specific neurologic functions. This research is essential in developing
management plans and treatments to minimize the effects of locoweed
poisoning of livestock. Management strategies to minimize locoweed
poisoning and the potential for control with herbicides, plant
pathogens, and/or native insect biocontrol agents are being studied
through a cooperative agreement from the Logan Laboratory with New
Mexico State University.
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the need for this research and
information you have concerning the total losses to U.S. agriculture.
Response. Locoweed is a native plant that grows in all Western
States. It consistently poisons animals in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, California, South Dakota, and Montana.
Animals are poisoned when locoweed is consumed at a rate of between 5
and 10% of their diet for several weeks. Locoweed poisoning is an
insidious disease that is often not recognized until severe damage,
including abortions, birth defects, congestive right heart failure,
decreased fertility, altered immune function, anorexia, emaciation, and
death has occurred. Animals that survive may have irreversible
neurological changes that make them useless for most work and of
limited value for breeding and food. Locoweed interferes with the
harvesting of useful forage resulting in the disruption of grazing
programs and the loss of considerable livestock forage. It has, on
occasion, resulted in the poisoning of big game such as elk and
antelope.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for locoweed
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. The funding for locoweed research at Logan, Utah, was
$578,400 in FY 1996. For FY 1997 and 1998, funding is projected to be
$572,500 each year, with two ARS scientists working on locoweed
research. This includes an estimated $113,000 in support of a
cooperative agreement with New Mexico State University in FY 1997 and
1998.
low-input sustainable agriculture
Mr. Skeen. Would you please describe for the Committee, in detail,
the work ARS has underway in the field of low-input sustainable
agriculture?
Response. Recent classifications of the ARS research program
indicates that approximately 360 projects or 30% of the total program
contributes substantially to sustainable agriculture. Classification as
``contributing substantially'' is based on the program contributing to
two or more of the following criteria: integrates plant and animal
production practices into cost effective production systems; satisfies
human food and fiber needs; enhances environmental quality; conserves
or enhances natural resources; improves utilization of biological
resources; increases economic viability; enhances qualify of life.
Specific examples of ARS sustainable agriculture research underway in
fiscal year 1997 are as follows:
Cheyenne, Wyoming; Pendleton, Oregon; Oxford, Mississippi; and
Ames, Iowa--Contributions of root and above ground portions of crops
and grasses to residual organic matter in soils and the roles of
tillage, double cropping and winter cover crops are being evaluated,
and cropping systems are being developed to improve soil quality where
most of the above ground portions of the crop can be harvested for
fiber, animal feed, or energy production.
Columbia, Missouri; Beltsville, Maryland; Ithaca, New York;
Gainesville, Florida; and Beckley, West Virginia--Field and pasture
species are being identified with specific abilities to penetrate acid
subsoils, and other soil layers that restrict rooting depth of most
crops. Cropping systems are being developed which can be used to
penetrate restrictive soil layers and facilitate deeper penetration of
successive crop roots to permanently expand the reservoirs of water
available, thereby reducing drought stress and increasing crop yields.
Columbus, Ohio, and Athens, Georgia--Crop species (soybean and
wheat) are being developed that survive and continue growth under
flooded conditions in order to reduce flood damage and decrease
drainage costs.
Akron, Colorado; Mandan, North Dakota; Bushland, Texas; Lincoln,
Nebraska; and Sidney, Montana--Crop rotations and alternative farming
systems are being developed to more fully utilize stored soil water and
expected rainfall, to reduce soil erosion and the time that land is in
fallow, to better control insects and diseases, and to increase net
incomes of Great Plains farmers.
Ithaca, New York, and Pullman, Washington--New varieties of crops
are being evaluated that grow more rapidly in cold winter and early
spring soils and thereby mature more quickly and avoid summer drought
or fall frosts, and are better adapted to rotational crop systems in
the colder regions of the U.S.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work carried out?
Response. ARS work on sustainable agriculture is carried out in 39
States at over 90 ARS laboratories and work sites with soil and climate
conditions representative of all the major U.S. crop and animal
production areas.
Mr. Skeen. What is the budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
1998?
Response. During 1994, ARS developed and began using criteria
established for the classification of sustainable agriculture research,
as defined in the 1990 Farm Bill. ARS convened panels to reassess the
contribution of individual research projects to sustainability. These
panels included farmers, representatives from non-profit organizations,
as well as scientists. They concluded that ARS research contributing to
low-input sustainable agriculture was budgeted for fiscal year 1996 at
$210,105,000. ARS estimates that $221,890,000 is budgeted for
sustainable agriculture research in fiscal year 1997 and $218,387,000
in fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. What is the total USDA program, by agency, for low-input
sustainable agriculture for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. The USDA budget for sustainable agriculture research is
as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds--fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Research Service................................ $210,105,000 $221,890,000 $218,387,000
Cooperative State Research Education, and Extension Service.. 115,566,000 131,485,000 128,668,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 325,671,000 353,375,000 347,055,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lyme disease research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with lyme disease research, by location.
Response. At Beltsville, Maryland, Lyme disease research is
conducted on the ecology of adult deer ticks at the woods/pasture
interface. Research addresses the movement of deer ticks as it relates
to protecting premises from the risk of exposure, and includes the
development of physical/chemical barrier technology. At the Knipling-
Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Laboratory, Kerrville, Texas, emphasis
is given to the characterization of the host/parasite interactions with
particular attention to wildlife. Research is also underway to develop
chemical control technologies, including novel delivery systems for
controlling adult ticks on white-tailed deer, and their utilization
within integrated management systems.
Mr. Skeen. What is the need for this research?
Response. Since the deer tick is the principal vector (carrier) of
Lyme disease, research is necessary to devise methods of reducing the
tick's population density in order to break the disease transmission
cycle.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the Agency's accomplishments in this
field of research?
Response. ARS scientists have developed fundamental knowledge
concerning methods for controlling deer ticks, also known as black-
legged ticks, which are the vectors of the pathogen causing Lyme
disease. Specifically, ARS scientists in Beltsville, Maryland, designed
barriers treated with an acaricide that were found to prevent dispersal
of host-seeking ticks. A simple system has been devised that will allow
scientists to assess the effectiveness of treatments to control adults
ticks on deer. ARS scientists have demonstrated external leg glands of
white-tailed deer are important in determining where adult ticks attach
to host animals. ARS scientists in Kerrville, Texas, have developed a
medicated corn bait technology to control ticks on white-tailed deer
which are the primary host animals for the tick species that transmit
Lyme disease. This is the only available, easy-to-use, and most
effective method of controlling ticks on wildlife during the non-
hunting season or in wildlife refuge areas. Automatic deer feeders or
open troughs containing invermectin-treated whole kernel corn are used
for feeding deer. By this method, reductions of 92, 93, and 100 percent
of adults, nymphs, and larvae, respectively, have been achieved in the
treatment area thus greatly reducing the risk to humans of possibly
contracting disease organisms. For controlling ticks on deer during
hunting season, ARS scientists have developed a recently patented
tropical pesticide treatment device called ``FOUR POSTS.'' It delivers
a known quantity of pesticide in the tick infested areas of neck and
ears when deer come to eat unmedicated corn in the ``FOUR POSTS.'' This
method of topic treatment of white-tailed deer and the medicated corn
bait are being evaluated in the wildlife refuge areas in the Southern
Plains, northeast and Midwest regions.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for lyme
disease research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beltsville, MD............................. $702,700 \1\ 1.0 $695,600 \1\ 1.0 $520,400 1.0
Kerrville, TX.............................. 259,600 1.0 257,000 1.0 257,000 1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 962,300 2.0 952,600 2.0 777,400 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $157,500 for a cooperative agreement with Yale University.
methyl bromide research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with methyl bromide research, by location.
Response. ARS conducts research at 19 locations to find
alternatives to present soil fumigation and postharvest uses of metyhyl
bromide. A description of our research projects at these locations
follows.
Research to develop alternatives to methyl bromide treatments for
commodity exports produced in the western United States is conducted at
ARS laboratories in Fresno, California, and Yakima, Washington.
Commodities being studied include nectarines, cherries, apples, raisins
and other dried fruits, citrus, tree nuts, cotton, and hay. Many of
these commodities cannot currently be exported without methyl bromide
treatment to eliminate quarantine pests. Research approaches include
alternative fumigants, heat and cold, modified atmospheres, and
combinations of treatments.
At Weslaco, Texas, and at Orlando and Miami, Florida, we are
developing alternative quarantine treatments for citrus, vegetables,
and subtropical fruits, as well as studying ways to minimize phytotoxic
effects of these treatments. Emphasis is placed on pest-free zones,
heat and cold treatments, and advanced quarantine pest detection
systems.
At our Hilo/Honolulu, Hawaii, laboratory, we are developing
alternatives for tropical fruit infested with fruit flies, especially
Mediterranean and oriental fruit flies, to allow export of Hawaii-grown
fruit to foreign markets and mainland United States, and to protect
mainland United States from introduction of pests present in Hawaii.
This research focuses on heat and cold commodity treatments and on
techniques to eradicate fruit flies.
Research to develop alternatives to soil fumigation with methyl
bromide to control pathogens and weeds is conducted at 15 ARS
locations. Methyl bromide is used to some extent on more than 100
crops, although nearly 80 percent of all the preplant methyl bromide
soil fumigation is used on just four crops--strawberries, tomatoes,
ornaments/nursery crops, and peppers. Alternatives to methyl bromide
soil fumigation include host plant resistance, biological control,
alternative chemicals, and different cultural practices, either alone
or combination.
At Washington, D.C., biological control and alternative, naturally-
occurring chemicals are being evaluated as alternatives to methyl
bromide for control of soilborne diseases of ornamentals.
At Beltsville, Maryland biological control agents are being
identified and their mode of action determined to improve control of
diseases of vegetables.
At Kearneysville, West Virginia, cultural and biological controls
are sought to reduce disease losses in tree fruits.
At Fresno, California, integrated strategies are being tested that
involve host plant resistance, biological control and alternative
chemicals for control of disease, nematodes and insects of
strawberries, grapes, tree fruits, and vegetables.
At Riverside, California, research is under way to reduce methyl
bromide emission in strawberry and vegetable production and to track
the movement and degradation of methyl bromide and alternative
fumigants.
At Davis, California, work is directed at using host plant
resistance and cultural modifications to manage diseases in tree fruits
and nuts.
At Salinas, California, research is aimed at finding biological and
cultural control methods to manage strawberry and vegetable diseases.
At Wenatchee, Washington, disease problems in tree fruit production
are being identified, and biological agents for their control are being
sought.
At Corvallis, Oregon, biological controls are being investigated
for diseases of ornamentals, and the role of beneficial microorganisms
in disease and weed management is being explored.
At Stoneville, Mississippi, biological control agents to control
weeds in vegetables are being identified and characterized.
At Tifton, Georgia, the emphasis is on finding cultural methods and
alternative chemical treatments for control of nematodes and diseases
on vegetables.
At Byron, Georgia, research is aimed at improving cultural
practices and host resistance to manage nematodes and diseases in
peaches and other tree fruits.
At Gainesville, Florida, work is under way to find alternative soil
treatments, such as solarization, flooding, or heating, to control
pests, weeds, and pathogens.
At Orlando, Florida, integrated methods involving biologic control,
cultural practices, and alternative chemicals are being developed for
control of weeds, nematodes and diseases in tomatoes, peppers, and
other vegetables.
At Charleston, South Carolina, alternative fumigants, host-plant
resistance, and cultural practices are being explored as alternative
disease management strategies in vegetables and fruits.
In addition, field-scale validation projects were begun in fiscal
year 1996 in Fresno, California, and Orlando, Florida, to determine if
the most promising experimental alternatives were effective,
economically feasible, and adaptable to commercial production systems.
Mr. Skeen. What is the need for this research?
Response. Methyl bromide is a halogenated hydrocarbon used as a
soil fumigant to control insects, weeds, and soil pathogens affecting
production of fruits, vegetables, and other crops, and a postharvest
fumigant for pest disinfestation of fruits for export and import. The
Environmental Protection Agency has banned the import and manufacture
of methyl bromide, effective January 1, 2001, because of its ozone
depletion potential. Loss of methyl bromide as a postharvest commodity
and soil fumigant will adversely affect crop production in the United
States, as well as both export and import trade between the U.S. and
its trading partners. Additionally, methyl bromide is the only
available tool for emergency use to permit movement of commodities out
of agricultural areas quarantined because of the Mediterranean fruit
fly or other pest outbreaks. Serious economic losses to U.S. producers
and handlers of many agricultural commodities are anticipated if
economically feasible alternatives are not available after January 1,
2001. The development of alternative technologies to the use of methyl
bromide is one of USDA's highest research priorities.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the agency's accomplishments in this
field of research?
Response. Methyl bromide was only recently identified as an ozone
depleting material. However, because ARS has for many years been
developing non-chemical procedures to replace chemical soil and
postharvest fumigations, ARS has several accomplishments in this area.
In relation to postharvest treatments ARS developed or assisted in
developing cold treatment for citrus and carambola from Florida to
Japan, pest-free certification for walnuts to New Zealand, heat
treatments for papaya and cold treatment for carambola from Hawaii to
Japan and mainland U.S., phospine fumigation of hay to Japan, gamma
irradiation treatment of exotic fruit and blueberry, and forced hot air
protocol for control of medfly in citrus.
Accomplishments pertinent to replacing methyl bromide as a soil
treatment include improved strawberry and vegetable varieties with
increased resistance to some soilborne diseases and pests;
microbiological agents for the biological control of some soilborne
diseases of vegetables and ornamental crops; improved cultural
practices, such as improved soil preparation, crop rotation systems,
and altered planting dates, to mitigate the effects of some soilborne
pests of strawberries, vegetable, and ornamental crops; and improved
pesticide formulation and application technology for available
chemicals other than methyl bromide to control plant parasitic
nematodes.
Non-pathogenic variants of a tomato-infecting fungus were shown to
be effective in controlling pathogenic strains. Grapevine and peach
rootstocks with improved nematode resistance have been developed.
Methods were devised for mass-producing and stabilizing mycoherbicidal
fungi for control of several weed species. Solarization of soil was
shown to be effective for controlling weeds in vegetable production.
Root-knot nematode resistance has been incorporated into commercial
bell peppers.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for methyl
bromide research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis, CA............................ $232,500 1.0 $230,100 1.0 $230,100 1.0
Fresno, CA........................... 3,365,100 9.3 3,531,600 9.3 3,531,600 9.3
Riverside, CA........................ 130,200 0.5 128,900 0.5 128,900 0.5
Salinas, CA.......................... 248,200 1.0 545,600 1.0 545,600 1.0
Washington, DC....................... 248,000 1.0 245,500 1.0 245,500 1.0
Gainesville, FL...................... 198,500 0.5 196,500 0.8 196,500 0.8
Miami, FL............................ 1,254,000 5.0 1,241,300 4.0 1,241,300 4.0
Orlando, FL.......................... 1,137,600 3.5 1,626,000 3.1 1,626,000 3.1
Byron, GA............................ 86,300 0.2 85,400 0.2 85,400 0.2
Tifton, GA........................... 475,300 1.3 470,500 1.3 470,500 1.3
Hilo, HI............................. 1,703,400 3.1 1,686,100 3.1 1,686,100 3.1
Beltsville, MD....................... 1,137,500 3.3 1,140,800 3.5 1,140,800 3.5
Stoneville, MS....................... 187,400 0.8 185,500 0.8 185,500 0.8
Corvallis, OR........................ 507,100 1.7 501,000 1.5 501,000 1.5
Charleston, SC....................... 338,200 1.0 336,600 1.0 336,600 1.0
Weslaco, TX.......................... 1,525,100 5.2 1,509,700 5.2 1,509,700 5.2
Wenatchee, WA........................ 215,200 0.8 213,000 0.8 213,000 0.8
Yakima, WA........................... 265,400 0.9 262,700 0.9 262,700 0.9
Kearneysville, WV.................... 447,400 1.7 442,900 1.6 442,900 1.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 13,702,400 41.8 14,579,700 40.6 14,579,700 40.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mushroom research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with mushroom research, by location.
Response. ARS conducts a limited amount of research on improving
mushroom quality at the Eastern Regional Research Center (ERRC) in
Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania. A washing process has been developed that not
only cleans mushrooms but also greatly extends shelf-life beyond that
obtained with conventional washing. A scaled-up, continuous washing
system, located in a commercial mushroom packing plant, is being
evaluated by ARS scientists and their industry collaborators for
technical and economic feasibility.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for mushroom
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. For fiscal year 1996 funding for mushroom research at
Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, was $77,100. In fiscal years 1997 and 1998
funding is estimated at $102,400 and $102,400, respectively. We
estimate a third of a scientist year is related to mushroom research.
Mr. Skeen. Is your research coordinated with the industry?
Response. Mushroom research at ERRC is closely coordinated with the
industry through a succession of cooperative agreements with 5 major
U.S. producers. Under these agreements, the mushroom industry has
funded research associates at FERC, contributed corporate resources to
the program, and participate in annual workshops to review research
progress and plan future research directions.
narcotics control research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the work you have underway on narcotics
control research.
Response. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) narcotics control
research program supports narcotic crop cultivation control efforts of
other federal law enforcement, foreign affairs, and intelligence
agencies.
ARS currently maintains research programs for the eradication of
narcotic crops using chemical and bioherbicidal means, the
identification of illicit crops through remote sensing, the estimation
of narcotic crop yields, narcotic plant biochemistry and the
development of alternative crops in narcotics-producing countries.
During the last year ARS supported herbicidal eradication programs in
Columbia, crop estimation efforts in Peru and Burma, crop substitution
research in Peru and Mexico, and is in the process of publishing peer-
reviewed journal monographs relating to the feasibility of
bioherbicides for narcotics control.
Mr. Skeen. What funding do you receive from other agencies?
Response. In fiscal year 1996 ARS received $250,000 from the
intelligence community for crop estimate research; $50,000 for
eradication research from the State Department and $100,000 for
alternative crop research from the U.S. diplomatic mission, Lima, Peru.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for narcotics
research in fiscal year 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beltsville, MD....................... $2,677,800 9.1 $3,053,200 9.4 $3,051,300 9.4
Weslaco, TX.......................... 277,800 1.0 ........... .......... ........... ..........
Headquarters......................... 1,756,400 .......... 1,658,800 .......... 1,657,700 ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 4,712,000 10.1 4,712,000 9.4 4,709,000 9.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
national arboretum
Mr. Skeen. Please provide for the record the budget for the
National Arboretum for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Response. Funding for the National Arboretum for fiscal year 1996
was $7,331,300. For fiscal year 1997 and 1998, the estimated funding is
$7,273,900.
Mr. Skeen. The fiscal year 1996 conference report provided
additional funding for an interpretive specialist and an internship
program. What is the status of these initiatives?
Response. Recruitment is underway to employ an interpretive
specialist and an internship coordinator has been employed. New
directional and interpretive signage was added to the Arboretum grounds
in fiscal year 1995. There was an 11 percent increase in public
visitation to the Arboretum during fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
new crops
Mr. Skeen. ARS has been doing research on several new crops such as
Cuphea, Vernonia, Hevea, Meadowfoam, and several others. For the
record, would you please describe each of these new crops and what its
likely potential is for American agriculture.
Response. The ARS new crops research is focused on those new or
alternative crops that are compatible with environmental concerns, that
contribute to sustainable production systems, and that possible
potential for domestically processed value-added products or strategic
materials. Most are oil-bearing seed crops useful in industry or as
replacements for imports.
Cuphea--Cuphea viscosissimal is native to the temperate regions of
the U.S. and contains medium chain oils. Cuphea oil has the potential
to replace oils that are now imported (1 billion pounds in 1991) as
coconut and palm oils from tropical regions for use in detergents and
other industrial products. For Cuphea to become a domestic crop, the
wild seed needs to be domesticated by changing several of the wild
seed's characteristics--like the tendency to scatter its seed before
harvest and to require a dormant period before it sprouts.
Vernonia--Vernonia galamensis is native to Africa, but has been
bred to grow in shorter day-length regions. Vernonia oil (epoxy oil)
has the potential to replace solvents in paints and become part of the
finished coating, which reduces air pollution from solvents. The
domestication and commercialization of vernonia depends on development
of high yielding cultivars and development of reliable agronomic
practices.
Hevea--Hevea braziliensis is the natural rubber tree which is the
source of the U.S.'s imported natural rubber. There is research to
determine the biochemical pathway and enzymes responsible for
production of natural rubber in Hevea for incorporation into other
plants, such as guayule, or organisms, but there is not research in ARS
to domestically develop Hevea as a new crop in the U.S.
Meadowfoam--Limnanthes alba is being commercially grown in Oregon
on about 3,000 acres, but it could be grown in other regions of the
U.S. as well. Meadowfoam oil which has long chains and is very stable
in air, has been modified chemically to develop potential new products
for the personal care, lubricants and detergent industries while the
seed meal may have application as a natural preemerge herbicide and
nematocide. The market for meadowfoam products is developing rapidly,
but seed varieties that are self-pollinating and consistency high
yielding for many regions of the U.S. are needed.
Crambe--Crambe abyssinica is grown commercially in North Dakota and
a derivative of the oil is being used industrially to keep plastic bags
from sticking back together when they are made. The current use can
support about 100,000 acres of crambe production. New markets for the
oil need to be found to ensure crambe's potential as a significant crop
for the Northern tier of states in the U.S.
Guayule--Parthenium argentatum is a desert shrub that has been
grown in Arizona, California, and Texas. Guayule produces natural
rubber that has potential markets in non-allergenic surgical gloves and
a resin that has potential in paints and coatings. Continued developed
of the fledgling guyaule industry in areas such as agronomy and
processing are needed to bring guayule to commercialization.
Jojoba--Simmondsia chinensis is a perennial shrub being
commercially grown in the desert Southwest for its unique oil. The oil
has markets in lubricants and personal care items and 70% of U.S.
production is exported to Japan and Europe but much larger acreage
would be economically feasible if coproducts were developed to support
high farmgate value, even when oil prices are low. The seed meal was
being discarded, but now new markets are being explored and development
of the processing of the meal and its commercial uses need to be
supported.
Milkweed--Asclepias syriaca is a fiber crop being grown in Nebraska
which reached a value of 1 million dollars in 1995. The fiber has
potential as a high quality insulating fiber. Development of coproduct
oil needs to be supported to increase the commercial viability and
acreage of milkweed in the Midwest.
Lesquerella--Lesquerella fendleri is a winter annual that can be
grown in the Southern U.S. for its oil, gum, and meal. There is a large
potential market for every product from lesquerella, so we would expect
that several thousand acres could be supported by the value of the
crop. Barriers to commercialization are the current incomplete
development of high oil content, self-pollinating seed, reliable
cultural practices and seed harvesting and cleaning equipment.
Euphorbia--Euphorbia lagascae is a potential new crop that can be
grown in the temperate regions of the U.S. The oil is similar to
vernonia oil, but Euphorbia lagascae has potential for supplying the
paints and coatings industry from a different geographic area of the
U.S. than vernonia. Knowledge is very limited in the varietal
development, agronomics, processing and product development of this
potential new crop.
Kenaf--Hibiscus cannibinus is an annual fiber crop grown in the
Southern U.S. on 3,000-4,000 acres in 1995 for a number of specialty
fiber applications. Fiber separation facilities are in Texas,
Mississippi, and Louisiana, and kenaf has potential as a forage crop as
well as a fiber crop. One limitation is the need for a pulping plant
that is near the growing areas.
Mr. Skeen. What are you spending, in terms of actual obligations,
for each of these?
Response. The actual obligations for fiscal 1996 were; Cuphea
$294,689; Vernonia $160,517; Hevea $278,842; Meadowfoam $101,908;
Crambe $77,922; Guayule $621,617; Jojoba $152,862; Milkweed--none;
Lesquerella $589,801; Euphorbia--none; Kenaf $1,328,338.
northwest small fruit research center
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the work you are funding at the
Northwest Small Fruit Research Center in Corvallis, Oregon.
Response. ARS research at the Northwest Small Fruit Research Center
in Corvallis, Oregon, is directed toward development of virus-resistant
and virus-free small fruits, and development of beneficial
microorganisms to enhance plant health, growth, and yield. Through
specific cooperative agreements, ARS supports extramural research on
small fruit evaluation, virus indexing, biological control of diseases
of small fruits, and non-chemical pesticidal control of insects through
host resistance and microbial pesticides.
Mr. Skeen. What is the funding and staff for research at this
Center for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. The funding for research at this Center for fiscal year
1996 was $1,721,000, fiscal year 1997 is $2,575,000, and fiscal year
1998 is proposed at $2,264,800, respectively, to support 4.4 scientists
each year.
peanut research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the work you have underway on peanut
research.
Response. We have research on peanuts at 10 locations. The
objectives of this research by location will be provided for the
record. The ARS peanut research program is carried out at several
Federal research laboratories. The program is a nationally managed,
fully coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to solving production and
postharvest issues of peanuts.
Dawson, GA--Development of new production handling and storage
systems, and biocontrol of aflatoxin production.
Fort Collins, CO--Acquisition, maintenance, and preservation of
germplasm.
Gainseville, FL--Bioregulation of stored product insects.
Griffin, GA--Maintenance, evaluation, and distribution of
germplasm.
Ithaca, NY--Increases bioavailability of essential elements and
decrease accumulation of toxic elements.
Mayaguez, PR--Germplasm development and seed increase.
New Orleans, LA--Genetic regulation of aflatoxin biosynthesis and
biocontrol of aflatoxin production.
Raleigh, NC--Development of quality and flavor components.
Stillwater, OK--Evaluation of peanut germplasm of disease
resistance.
Tifton, GA--Improved management practices and germplasm resistance
to diseases, insects, nematodes, and aflatoxin production.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for peanut
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athens, GA........................... $42,700 0.2 ........... .......... ........... ..........
Beltsville, MD....................... 19,400 .......... ........... .......... ........... ..........
Dawson, GA........................... 2,302,600 8.1 $2,279,300 8.0 $2,279,300 8.0
Ft. Collins, CO...................... ........... .......... 113,800 0.4 113,800 0.4
Gainesville, FL...................... 255,900 .08 282,300 0.9 282,300 0.9
Griffin, GA.......................... 368,800 1.2 342,700 1.3 342,700 1.3
Ithaca, NY........................... 68,000 0.2 67.300 0.2 67,300 0.2
Mayaguez, PR......................... 121,500 0.1 120,300 0.1 120,300 0.1
New Orleans, LA...................... 784,700 3.3 741,300 2.7 741,300 2.7
Raleigh, NC.......................... 769,700 4.0 683,300 3.6 397,500 2.6
Stillwater, OK....................... 274,700 1.0 421,800 1.0 271,800 1.0
Tifton, GA........................... 1,005,800 2.5 873,000 2.1 873,000 2.1
Headquarters......................... 221,400 .......... 219,200 .......... 219,200 ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals......................... 6,235,200 21.4 6,144,300 20.3 5,708,500 19.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pear thrips
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the work you have underway on pear
thrips.
Response. ARS has provided insect pathology support and established
a cooperative agreement with the University of Vermont for research on
the control of pear thrips. The ARS European Biological Control
Laboratory at Montpellier, France, has been working cooperatively with
the University of Vermont to explore for biological control agents of
pear thrips.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for pear
thrips research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. The funding at Ithaca, New York, for pear thrips for
fiscal year 1996 was $82,000 and is $80,300 for fiscal year 1997.
Proposed funding in fiscal year 1998 is $30,300. The scientist years
are 0.2 for each year.
peas, lentils, and legumes
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the work you have underway on peas,
lentils, and legumes.
Response. ARS conducts research on peas, lentils, and legumes at
eight locations. The objectives of this research by location will be
provided for the record. The program is a nationally managed, fully
coordinated, multi disciplinary approach to solving production and
postharvest issues of peas, lentils, and legumes.
Albany, CA--Development of assays for pesticide residues on fresh
peas, and genetic engineering of ethylene responses.
Charleston, SC--Development of legumes with increased resistance to
nematodes and other soilborne pathogens; determination of alleopathic
factors affecting weed control.
Fargo, ND--Characterization of internal chemistry of whitefly to
determine their roles in predator/prey recognition and predator
nutrition; identify and characterize genes controlling insect
developments.
Griffin, GA--Detection and elimination of viruses in legume
germplasm; detection of resistance to viruses in legume germplasm.
Prosser, WA--Evaluation and enhancement of pea germplasm;
identification of disease resistance; and computer modeling of
conservation trillage-based production systems.
Pullman, WA--Identification of insect and disease resistance in dry
peas and lentils; establishment of genetic linkage maps in lentils, dry
peas, and chickpeas; development of improved varieties; development of
integrated pest management systems; and maintenance of pea germplasm
and pea genetic stocks.
Pendleton, OR--Evaluation of tillage systems on residue placement
and decomposition in relation to soil erosion.
Headquarters--Review and evaluate research proposals from ARS
scientists and Crop Germplasm Committees.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for peas,
lentils, and legumes research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, CA................................. $173,600 0.4 $239,700 0.6 $239,700 0.6
Fresno, CA................................. 21,900 .......... ......... .......... ......... ..........
Griffin, GA................................ 201,000 0.6 450,900 1.5 450,900 1.5
Fargo, ND.................................. 177,800 0.4 176,000 0.4 176,000 0.4
Pendleton, OR.............................. ......... .......... 87,600 0.4 87,600 0.4
Charleston, SC............................. 297,400 1.0 294,000 1.0 294,000 1.0
Prosser, WA................................ 234,900 1.0 275,000 1.0 ......... \1\
Pullman, WA................................ 776,400 3.2 728,700 3.2 1,003,700 4.2
Headquarters............................... 64,600 .......... 64,000 .......... 64,000 ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 1,947,600 6.6 2,315,900 8.1 2,315,900 8.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prosser, WA project redirected to Pullman, WA.
pecan research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with pecan research, by location.
[The information follows:]
College Station, TX--Pecan genetics, breeding and germplasm
maintenance.
Byron, GA--Germplasm enhancement; and development of improved pecan
cultivation and pest (disease and insect) management strategies.
Cooperative research is supported at New Mexico State University.
Stoneville, MS--Development of biological and other non-
insecticidal methods to manage insect pests of pecan.
New Orleans, LA--Development of technologies to assist commodity
processors (nut shellers) in converting their by-products to value-
added absorbents.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for pecan
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byron, GA............................... $1,263,000 3.1 $1,291,500 3.1 $1,291,500 3.1
New Orleans, LA......................... 36,600 0.1 34,600 0.1 34,600 0.1
Stoneville, MS.......................... 134,800 0.5 133,400 0.5 133,400 0.5
College Sta., TX........................ 563,000 1.8 557,300 1.8 557,300 1.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 1,997,400 5.5 2,016,800 5.5 2,016,800 5.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
plant gene expression center
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee some of the
accomplishments of the Plant Gene Expression Center during the past 12
months.
Response. Some of the accomplishments of the Plant Gene Expression
Center--PGEC--at Albany, California, will be provided for the record.
Regulatory genes that alter growth patterns--PGEC scientists have
continued in their identification and analysis of regulatory genes that
alter the growth pattern of maize plants. Due to the fact that gene
order is conserved in the grasses, and thus all cereal grains, the
analysis in maize has potential application for other cereals. The
teosinte branched gene has been isolated and shown to function in
auxillary buds to regulate the number of tillers in a corn plant.
Although tillering is not a desirable trait in maize, it is desirable
in rice and forage grasses. The function of the indeterminate spikelet
gene was determined through a CRADA with Pioneer Hi-Bred International.
This gene regulates the number of flowers in a maize spikelet.
Manipulation of this gene in cereals has the potential to increase
yield.
Mutants in pollen-specific receptor-like kinase genes from corn--A
CRADA has been entered into with Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.,
Johnston, Iowa, to isolate and characterize mutants in pollen-specific
receptor-like kinase genes from corn. PGEC researchers are studying how
the pollen grain interacts with the female tissue during pollination
and fertilization; receptor-like kinases are thought to be involved in
such cell-cell interactions in many situations, such as interactions
between plants and their pathogens. PGEC scientists have isolated and
characterized pollen-specific kinase genes from tomato and from corn.
Corn seed likely to have transposable element-induced mutations in
these kinases has been provided to the PGEC by Pioneer, and PGEC
scientists are testing pollen of these plants to determine if pollen-
female interactions are disrupted in these mutants. In parallel, PGEC
researchers are using transgenic plants to deduce the roles of the
tomato pollen kinases. If these kinases play critical roles, plant
breeders may try to manipulate the kinases as a new means to control
pollination and fertilization.
Genic control of cell division in pollen--Many aspects of gene
regulation during development of the male gametophyte (pollen grain)
are poorly understood and therefore genetic manipulation of pollen is
difficult. PGEC scientists are using a tissue culture pollen maturation
system to assess the relative importance of different types of gene
regulation (e.g., RNA stability, protein turnover) on the progression
through normal pollen development.
Control of plant cell growth--Plants use hormones such as ethylene
and auxin to control fruit ripening and cell growth, respectively. ARS
scientists at the PGEC have been able to halt fruit senescence in
tomato using antisense technology. Now they are attempting to alter
fundamental processes that are regulated by the plant hormone auxin
using genes that are regulated by the hormone. The long-term goal of
the investigation is to enhance the value of agronomic products and to
enhance crop productivity.
PGEC, a participant in the NSF-DOE-USDA Arabidopsis Genome
Project--The PGEC initiated a large-scale genome sequencing of the
model plant Arabidopsis in collaboration with the Stanford University
and University of Pennsylvania. The Genome Sequence Lab of the PGEC has
produced one megabase--1,000 kilobases--of genomic sequencing since its
establishment last fall. This project constitutes an international
effort for identifying for the first time the genes--about 20,000--that
are responsible for making a plant.
Control of plant tolerance to heavy metals--PGEC scientists are
characterizing several genes that affect metal toxicity in plants.
Defining the genes that control metal accumulation in plants could lead
to lower dietary consumption of the toxic elements. Conversely,
enhancing metal accumulation in certain plants would facilitate the
bioextraction of toxic metals from contaminated sources.
Improving gene transfer in cereal crops--The gene transfer process
produces unpredictable DNA integration and expression patterns in
plants. PGEC scientists are applying novel site-specific recombination
technology to wheat transformation to allow for precise DNA
integration.
Degrading the gossypol compount--PGEC scientists have isolated a
bacterium that can degrade the toxic compound in cotton known as
gossypol. Current efforts are underway to identify the gene(s)
responsible for gossypol breakdown. Gossypol-free cottonseed could be
used for food and feed.
Transgenic plants--PGEC scientists have developed transgenic plants
with suppressed shade avoidance response that have now been shown by
collaborators in field trials to exhibit increased harvest index in
response to increasing planting densities relative to non-transgenic
controls. The significance of these findings is that through the study
of the fundamental molecular genetics of the phytochrome photoreceptor
system an ecofriendly framework has been established with the potential
to improve the productivity of agriculturally important crops without
the need for increased fertilizer or agrochemical use or changed
cultivation practices.
New approaches for isolating resistance genes to potato late
blight--Scientists at the PGEC are using their experience in isolating
plant resistance (R) genes imparting resistance to fungi, bacteria,
viruses, and nematodes in evolutionarily divergent plant species (rice
to Arabidopsis) to locate and isolate resistance to potato late blight.
ARS scientists at the PGEC previously isolated the tobacco mosaic virus
resistance gene N, which belongs to a multigene resistance family in
tobacco. The genomes of tobacco, tomato, and potato are highly similar
in content and organization, and the N gene homologues have been
located to a region of the potato chromosome bearing R genes that
confer resistance to the fungus that causes potato late blight,
Phytophthora infestans, and the virus that causes potato virus X. The
scientists are presently working to isolate and sequence N homologous
genomic clones in the vicinity of the R1 gene on chromosome 5 of potato
where they postulate that a cluster of N gene homologues will be found
linked to the R1 gene. Success will be measured in having developed an
efficacious approach that can be applied to isolation of numerous
disease resistance loci of most crops as well as provide important
information and eventually a genetic means to combat disease that
threatens an agriculturally important crop.
Mr. Skeen. What is the budget for the Plant Gene Expression Center
for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. The budgets for the Plant Gene Expression Center for
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 are $3,145,700, $3,091,300, and
$3,091,300, respectively.
potato research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work your are
doing in connection with potato research, by location.
Response. A description of ARS potato research programs by location
will be provided for the record. The program is a nationally managed,
fully coordinated, multi disciplinary approach to solving production
and postharvest issues of potatoes.
ARS Headquarters.--Funds maintained at headquarters are allocated
for extramural research on ring rot, early dying, and scab disease
problems, aphid and beetle control, marketing, and variety development.
Albany, CA (PGEC).--Development of new genetic engineering
techniques and gene expression of economically important genes in
potato.
Albany, CA (WRRC).--Improved potato quality using plant cell
transformation and other genetic engineering techniques.
Aberdeen, ID.--Development of new improved pest resistant varieties
and disease management strategies.
Beltsville, MD.--Germplasm evaluation, enhancement, and breeding
improved varieties, protoplast fusion and other genetic engineering
techniques; processing germplasm introductions; pathogen-host
interactions and genetics of pest resistance; and biological control of
potato insects. Field trials in support of the breeding program are
conducted at Presque Isle, Maine.
Columbia, MO.--Identify natural products to improve artificial
diets of beneficial organisms used for biological control of insect
pests.
Fargo, ND.--Marketing, storage, and inhibition of sprouting.
Physical properties and other factors associated with processed potato
quality; volatiles and prediction of potato quality from bulk storage;
processing quality factors of potatoes following storage; evaluation of
potential new varieties for processing attributes; and inhibition of
sprouting.
Frederick, MD.--Characterization and genetics of new and exotic
strains of fungal pathogens of potato, especially the potato late
blight disease pathogen.
Ithaca, NY.--Evaluation of potato germplasm for nematode
resistance; biology and integrated management of the golden nematode
based on host resistance, cultural practices, biological control, and
soil fumigation. Control of potato disease and nematodes; development
of integrated pest management strategies, and determination of soil and
water stress effect on potato production.
Wyndmoor, PA.--Biochemical nature of the interaction of potato
pathogens with host plant; mycotoxin production in plants; and improved
food processing methods for potatoes.
Prosser, WA.--Evaluation and enhancement of potato germplasm,
including use of genetic engineering techniques, development of new
improved varieties,and methods of disease control.
Yakima, WA.--Insect behavior; insect ecology; biological control;
and improved non-pesticidal methods to control potato insects.
Peoria, IL.--Determination of the chemical mode of action of potato
sprout inhibitors.
Madison, WI.--Classification, evaluation, preservation, and
distribution of introduced germplasm; potato genetics and cytogenetics;
and protoplast fusion and other genetic engineering techniques.
Weslaco, TX.--Biological control of sweetpotato whitefly and
diamondback moth on vegetable crops.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for potato
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, CA.............................. $1,739,900 6.3 $1,503,500 6.3 $1,383,800 6.3
Aberdeen, ID............................ 392,800 2.0 388,800 2.0 1,035,000 2.0
Peoria, IL.............................. 360,200 1.3 356,500 1.3 356,500 1.3
Beltsville, MD.......................... 3,738,900 11.1 3,593,400 11.1 3,893,400 9.7
Frederick, MD........................... 172,200 0.6 170,400 0.6 170,400 0.6
Columbia, MO............................ 61,200 0.2 60,600 0.2 60,600 0.2
Fargo, ND............................... 1,376,000 4.4 1,373,000 4.4 1,373,000 4.4
Ithaca, NY.............................. 839,400 2.8 898,900 2.8 802,400 2.8
Wyndmoor, PA............................ 216,800 0.9 445,400 1.7 307,100 1.1
Weslaco, TX............................. 91,800 0.2 90,900 0.2 90,900 0.2
Prosser, WA............................. 1,107,800 3.1 1,096,600 3.1 .......... ..........
Yakima, WA.............................. 840,300 2.6 831,800 2.6 831,800 2.6
Madison, WI............................. 621,300 4.3 700,700 4.3 700,700 4.3
Headquarters \1\........................ 1,413,000 .......... 1,398,700 .......... 1,398,700 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 12,971,600 39.8 12,909,200 40.6 12,404,300 35.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds provided for cooperative research to the following States: Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota,
Maine, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Colorado in FY 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Please provide for the record a table showing the
research funding devoted to ring rot, early dying, marketing, aphids,
potato beetle, weeds, variety development, soils, and agricultural
engineering for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Response. A table showing the research funding devoted to ring rot,
early dying, marketing, aphids, potato beetle, weeds, variety
development, soils, and agricultural engineering for fiscal years 1996,
1997 and 1998 will be provided for the record.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years; funds--
-----------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ring Rot............................ $259,900 $257,300 $257,300
Early Dying......................... 407,400 490,200 490,200
Marketing........................... 2,447,000 2,736,900 2,617,200
Aphids.............................. 326,800 323,500 323,500
Potato Beetle....................... 2,872,800 2,692,500 2,692,500
Weeds............................... .......... .......... ..........
Variety Development................. 2,155,000 2,155,400 2,013,200
Soils............................... 227,300 158,400 116,400
Agricultural Engineering............ .......... .......... ..........
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 8,696,200 8,814,200 8,510,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
late blight potato research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with Late Blight potato research, by location.
[The information follows:]
Aberdeen, ID.--Development of resistant or tolerant varieties, and
characterization of the nature and genetics of resistance to late
blight.
Beltsville, MD.--Development of resistant germplasm and varieties
by conventional plant breeding and biotechnology; determination of the
ecology of the pathogen; determination of the mechanism(s) of
resistance; mapping of resistance genes; and screening of experimental
germplasm.
Frederick, MD.--Characterization of the virulence, pathogenicity,
and genetics of different strains, races, and types of the pathogen;
development of improved pathogen detection and identification methods;
and development of methods to reduce the stability of the pathogen.
Madison, WI.--Transfer of late blight-resistance genes from wild
potato-related species into cultivated potato varieties using tissues
culture and other biotechnological techniques to overcome natural
barriers to gene transfer. Identification of resistant germplasm in
wild potato relatives and in potato germplasm from around the world.
Ithaca, NY.--Development of integrated disease management
strategies; development of cropping systems and other cultural
practices to reduce disease incidence.
Mr. Skeen. What is the need for this research?
Response. Potato late blight, the disease responsible for the Irish
potato famine, has, since 1993, become an increasingly important
problem in the United States. Losses in 1994 totaled as much as $100
million with another $100 million spent on fungicides in attempts to
control the epidemic. In 1995, the disease occurred in Idaho where it
had not been seen for several generations. Decreased yields in the
field and increased losses due to storage rots are expected to continue
whenever environmental conditions are conducive to the disease, which
is often the case in U.S. potato-growing regions. The problem has
resurfaced because of the appearance of new strains of the fungus that
are resistant to the fungicide that has kept the disease largely in
check for decades. Research is needed to develop potato varieties
resistant to disease and to devise other control strategies to minimize
disease losses.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for Late
Blight potato research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen, ID......................... $38,300 0.2 $38,900 0.2 $38,900 0.2
Beltsville, MD....................... 353,000 1.3 351,400 1.3 351,400 1.3
Frederick, MD........................ 172,200 0.7 170,400 0.7 170,400 0.7
Ithaca, NY........................... 138,100 1.2 257,700 1.2 241,400 1.2
Madison, WI.......................... 61,000 0.2 63,700 0.2 63,700 0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 763,600 3.6 882,100 3.6 865,800 3.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
russian wheat aphid
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with the Russian wheat aphid, by location.
Response. ARS research objectives on Russian wheat aphid by
location are as follows:
Beltsville, MD.--Provide a predictive classification for aphids and
aphid natural enemies to aid in development of control methods.
Participate in the international program for biological control of
Russian wheat aphid.
Brookings, SD.--Investigate seed treatments and genetic
modifications to protect wheat from Russian wheat aphid.
Ithaca, NY.--Investigate fungal insect pathogens for control of
Russian wheat aphids.
Lincoln, NE.--Develop and evaluate small grain cultivars with
resistance to the Russian what aphid.
Manhattan, KS.--Identify resistance to Russian what aphid in wild
plants for incorporation into what germplasm by genetic manipulation.
Montpellier, France.--Discover, collect, and evaluate predators and
parasites of Russian wheat aphid in Europe and Asia.
Newward, DE.--Evaluate exotic predators and parasites of Russian
wheat aphid in quarantine and conduct releases of beneficial insects
into grain fields.
Stillwater, OK.--Identify and characterize genotypes of cultivated
and related wheat and barley species that are resistant to Russian
wheat aphid, and release cereal germplasm to breeders. Rear, release,
and evaluate natural enemies of the Russian wheat aphid for the control
of this insect pest.
Mr. Skeen. What is the need for this research?
Response. Russian wheat aphid is an insect pest of wheat, barley,
and grasses that first appeared in the United States in 1986. The
current known distribution in North America, includes 16 U.S. states--
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
Washington, Wyoming; three Canadian provinces--Alberta, British
Columbia, and Saskatchewan; and several areas of Mexico. The cumulative
economic impact of Russian wheat aphid has been more than $400 million
in direct losses, in addition to more than $430 million in indirect
losses. Because of these economic losses, there is an urgent need to
develop and transfer to the growers economical, publicly-acceptable,
and environmentally-sound Russian wheat aphid control strategies in
order to ameliorate this serious problem.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for Russian
wheat aphid research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newark, DE........................... $229,900 0.7 $215,700 0.7 $215,700 0.7
Manhattan, KS........................ 80,000 0.6 129,200 0.6 79,200 0.6
Beltsville, MD....................... 96,100 0.3 95,100 0.5 95,100 0.5
Lincoln, NE.......................... ........... .......... 109,800 0.5 109,800 0.5
Ithaca, NY........................... 148,700 0.4 131,600 0.4 121,600 0.4
Stillwater, OK....................... 1,379,800 5.2 1,365,900 5.1 1,365,900 5.1
Brookings, SD........................ 202,100 0.9 60,200 0.3 60,200 0.3
Montpellier, France.................. 228,600 0.7 226,300 0.8 226,300 0.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 2,365,200 8.8 2,333,800 8.9 2,273,800 8.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
soil and water research
Mr. Skeen. How many research laboratories are currently working on
soil and water research? Where are they located?
Response. ARS currently has 44 principal laboratories conducting
soil and water research. At most of these locations, other research
besides soil and water is being conducted. The locations of the soil
and water laboratories are as follows: Auburn, AL; Tucson, AZ; Phoenix,
AZ; Fresno, CA; Salinas, CA; Riverside, CA; Fort Collins, CO; Akron,
CO; Gainesville, FL; Athens, GA; Tifton, GA; Boise, ID; Ames, IA;
Kimberly, ID; West Lafayette, IN; Urbana, IL; Manhattan, KS: Baton
Rouge, LA; New Orleans, LA; Beltsville, MD; Stoneville, MS; Oxford, MS;
Columbia, MO; St. Paul, MN; Morris, MN; Lincoln, NE; Ithaca, NY;
Mandan, ND; El Reno, OK; Lane, OK; Columbus, OH; Coshocton, OH;
Pendleton, OR; University Park, PA; Florence, SC; Temple, TX; Lubbock,
TX; Bushland, TX; Weslaco, TX; Pullman, WA; Wenatchee, WA; Prosser, WA;
Kearneysville, WV; and Beckley, WV.
Mr. Skeen. What are the objectives of each site?
Response. Objectives of each laboratory conducting soil and water
research are as follows:
Auburn, AL.--Understand the physics of dynamic soil properties and
how these properties are impacted by such farming operations as tillage
and harvest. Develop methodology for improving water intake and storage
in soils, for dispensing the vast zone, and for utilizing organic
wastes in soil building.
Tucson, AZ.--Quantify soil, water, and vegetation processes in arid
and semi-arid climates for sustainable agriculture. Determine the most
appropriate spatial and temporal scale of natural resource variability
in semi-arid regions. Develop decision support systems for producers to
improve water quality and rangeland management.
Phoenix, AZ.--Develop management tools, new practices, and computer
software to improve water application practices and water delivery
systems for irrigated agriculture. Determine the effects on plant
growth and water use efficiency of elevated levels of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. Identify, develop, and refine remote sensing approaches
for evaluating crop stresses, and the benefits of precision farming.
Fresno, CA.--Develop improved water and nutrient management
practices for annual and perennial irrigated crops to protect water
quality. Coordinate the development of cropping systems that provide
alternatives to preplant methyl bromide fumigation for strawberry and
perennial vine and orchard crops.
Salinas, CA.--Develop biologically-based alternatives for preplant
methyl bromide fumigation under vegetable crops that address natural
resources and environmental issues.
Riverside, CA.--Develop user-friendly models to simulate the
movement of salts and dissolved agricultural chemicals through the root
zone. Develop a salinity assessment system to inventory soil salinity
and evaluate Geographic Information System techniques to improve the
management of salt affected soils. Determine and characterize the
chemical processes that affect the movement of potentially toxic trace
elements in soil and water. Develop irrigation and pesticide management
practices to reduce the potential for environmental contamination.
Fort Collins, CO.--Develop a basic understanding of the soil
processes involved in nitrogen and carbon cycling and quantify the
fluxes of trace gases from soils into the atmosphere. Determine the
contribution of fertilizer and other nitrogen sources to nitrate
leaching and develop testing procedures to improve nitrogen management.
Evaluate the economic and water quality benefits of crop production
systems using the Nitrate Leaching and Economic Analysis Package model.
Develop integrated and sustainable irrigated cropping systems for
spatially variable soils. Refine the Root Zone Water Quality Model to
include the capability of assessing the benefits of alternative crop
production practices and systems throughout the Great Plains.
Akron, CO.--Develop alternative crop rotations that maximize
production and nutrient-use efficiency in dryland cropping systems for
the Northern Great Plains.
Gainesville, FL.--Determine the interrelationships between soil and
water factors in the production of citrus crops.
Athens, GA.--Conduct research on and development of crop and animal
agricultural management systems that conserve and enhance the soil
resource and protect the environment. Improve our understanding of
system component interactions at plot, field, and watershed scales.
Tifton, GA.--Determine the fate of agricultural chemicals and
sediment in managed and restored riparian buffer systems. Develop
procedures for determining the distribution of agrichemicals within
different landscape features for watersheds of the Coastal Plains.
Characterize the effects of these landscape features on water and
agrichemical movement and develop models for use at various watershed
scales. Develop a physical process model to describe the behavior and
fate of pesticides in soil.
Boise, ID.--Develop predictive models of upland and basin-scale
hydrologic systems to evaluate the water resource, water quality, range
productivity and environmental implications of climatic variability,
including global climate change impacts, for semi-arid rangeland
ecosystems.
Kimberly, ID.--Develop systematic methods to integrate fertility
and tillage into irrigated crop production. Develop irrigation
scheduling and application methods to improve water-use efficiency and
uniformity of application. Develop conservation tillage cropping
systems to reduce soil erosion and nitrate leaching on irrigated lands.
Urbana, IL.--Develop real-time sensors for determining the nitrate
status of cropland soils. Develop low-rate pesticide application
techniques that protect water quality. Evaluate the effects of soil
properties, temperature, and biological activity on the degradation of
pesticides in soils.
West Lafayette, IN.--Develop procedures for routing water,
sediment, and nutrients across land surfaces to improve watershed
management. Refine the soil erosion model, developed by the Water
Erosion Prediction Project, to provide a useful management tool for
resource conservation agencies.
Ames, IA.--Develop improved methods to detect the presence of
pesticides and nitrate in soil and water. Develop crop and soil
management systems that minimize adverse environmental impacts of
spatial and temporal variability in soils and climate. Develop
management practices that enhance soil structure and minimize sediment
losses in runoff from croplands. Develop integrated agricultural
production systems that protect environmental quality at field and
watershed scales.
Manhattan, KS.--Understand the physics of erosion of soils by wind
and the consequent emission of fine particulate dusts (PM-10). Develop
science-based tools for predicting wind erosion and particulate
emissions, given such physical and biological knowledge of soils,
climates, crops, and control practices, so that effective land use and
practice planning may take place.
Baton Rouge, LA.--Develop integrated water table management systems
for sustainable crop production and environmental protection. Develop
soil and water management systems that do not adversely affect nearby
wetlands.
New Orleans, LA.--Determine the influence of crop rotations on soil
surface populations of Aspergillus flavus.
Beltsville, MD.--Develop alternatives for methyl bromide for
managing soilborne pathogens in ornamentals. Identify and evaluate
those soil and plant factors that affect the concentration and
bioavailability of cadmium in crops. Develop techniques, based on the
reflectance and fluorescence properties of landscapes, for assessing
crop status, snow cover, biomass, and soil properties. Develop
integrated soil-crop-pest management strategies for sustainable
agriculture. Evaluate the influence of soil quality factors on soil
ecology and sustainable agriculture. Develop techniques for the
biodegradation of agricultural chemicals and the bioremediation of soil
contaminants. Develop integrated soil, crop, and biocontrol systems as
alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for controlling plant
pathogens. Identify and characterize naturally-occurring biocontrol
agents in soil for plant disease control. Identify soil and root
development factors that limit fruit crop growth on soils treated with
gypsifeous byproducts. Assess the relative impact of conservation
tillage and plow tillage systems on nitrate losses to groundwater,
streams, and estuaries. Assess the impact of winter cover crops on
nitrate losses to shallow groundwater. Develop magnetic resonance
spectroscopy and imaging techniques to assess water quality by
identifying indicators of toxins and pollutants. Determine threshold
levels of phosphorus in agricultural watersheds of the Northwest that
impair surface water quality. Determine the effects of phosphorus
management in pastures on the availability and loss of phosphorus in
runoff. Develop decision aids for farm consultants and producers to
promote economical and environmentally safe farming practices.
St. Paul, MN.--Develop tillage and residue management systems to
sustain or improve soil organic matter and crop production. Develop
improved alfalfa germplasms that increase the ability of the crop to
remove nitrate in soil from manure, fertilizer, and other sources.
Develop innovative integrated farming systems to protect water and
environmental quality in the Northern Sand Plains regions.
Morris, MN.--Develop a simulation model to characterize the fate of
nitrogen and pesticides during soil freezing. Develop tillage systems
and traffic control patterns for crop rotations that protect the
environment.
Stoneville, MS.--Evaluate the impacts of sustainable soil, water,
and pesticide management practices on cotton and soybean production.
Develop cropping systems for cotton that reduce pesticide application
rates. Develop ultra-low volume techniques for reducing herbicide
application rates and associated environmental risks.
Oxford, MS.--Develop solutions to upland and channel erosion and
sedimentation problems in the Demonstration Erosion Control project.
Quantify the effects of cropping systems and tillage on rill and
interrill erosion in Mid South soils. Develop acoustic-based technology
to nondestructively measure spatial variability in soil and water
properties. Characterize long-term watershed changes as affected by
stream channel measures that stabilize channel ecosystems. Develop
improved erosion prediction technology for use by action agencies.
Evaluate the pathways of surface water and groundwater movement for
conservation tillage systems. Develop integrated farming systems to
improve water and environmental quality in the Mississippi Delta.
Columbia, MO.--Develop integrated farming systems to protect water
and environmental quality on clay-pan soils in the Midwest. Develop
simulation procedures to describe sediment detachment and transport
during rainfall. Develop linear and non-linear procedures to model
hydrologic processes and chemical transport across the landscape and
through the soil profile.
Lincoln, NE.--Define and evaluate a minimum set of soil
measurements to characterize soil quality. Develop management
techniques to optimize utilization of nitrogen from soil, water, and
waste sources. Develop integrated production systems to protect water
and environmental quality including remote sensing technologies for
irrigated crops.
Ithaca, NY.--Determine soil and plant factors limiting the
availability of beneficial nutrients to plants and the uptake of
potentially harmful heavy metals. Develop soil, water, and disease
management strategies for controlling early-dying disease of potato.
Mandan, ND.--Develop conservation tillage systems that reduce
pesticide use and optimize water and nutrient use. Develop sustainable
and environmentally sound integrated production systems for glacial-
till soils in the Northern Great Plains.
Columbus, OH.--Develop water table management strategies for poorly
drained soil using subsurface drainage to minimize year-to-year
variability in crop yield.
Coshocton, OH.--Determine the seasonal movement of nutrients and
pesticides over the land surface and through sloping soils used for
pasture and row crop production. Determine how runoff and subsurface-
flow processes can be systematically combined to represent the
variability found in larger watersheds.
El Reno, OK.--Develop site-specific management practices for
rangelands that optimize animal production, soil and water
conservation, and environmental protection. Develop techniques to
generate spatially dependent weather data for use in water resources
assessment models, agricultural production models, and ecosystem
responses to global climate change. Determine the distribution of
water, salts, nutrients, and other agricultural chemicals beneath playa
lakes in the Southern High Plains receiving runoff from feedlots.
Develop practices that minimize the environmental impact of animal
waste application to agricultural land. Evaluate the effects of
riparian zones and wetlands on the movement of water, nutrients, and
sediments from agricultural watersheds.
Lane, OK.--Develop effective soil and water technologies for
disease control caused by soilborne pathogens in horticultural crops.
Pendleton, OR.--Develop improved crop and soil management practices
that will enhance sustainability in dryland agroecosystems. Determine
climatic scenario probabilities for the Pacific Northwest that impact
runoff and erosion.
University Park, PA.--Evaluate the role of spatial variability in
soil properties on watershed response, and develop techniques for using
spatially variable properties in watershed models. Determine the
effects of phosphorus management practice on phosphorus loads in runoff
from pastured watersheds in the Northeast. Describe and quantify the
processes controlling groundwater recharge and storm runoff for fields
and watershed in the Northeast. Determine the role, and characterize
the relative importance, of spatial variability in modeling water and
nutrient movement at field, watershed, and basin scales.
Florence, SC.--Enhance water and fertilizer use efficiency in
Coastal Plain soils to improve farm productivity and enhance the
environment. Identify and remediate water quality problems in the
eastern Coastal Plain to enhance water and environmental quality.
Develop improved conservation tillage practices for crop production in
the eastern Coastal Plains.
Temple, TX.--Develop sustainable and environmentally sound
conservation tillage for clay soils. Develop a comprehensive basin
scale water quality model that incorporates climatic and carbon dioxide
changes and permits Geographical Information System inputs for use in
regional and national assessments of conservation programs.
Lubbock, TX.--Develop a simulation submodel to predict how tillage,
surface residue cover, and wind velocity affect wind erosion and
emission of PF-10 dust. Evaluate sustainable cropping systems for semi-
arid environments including evaluation of modified genetic materials
for the purposes of controlling erosion and fine particulate dust
emissions.
Bushland, TX.--Develop sustainable cropping systems for the
Southern Great Plains that optimize soil, water, and nutrient
resources. Develop improved irrigation scheduling procedures for the
Southern High Plains. Evaluate the benefits of wind energy technologies
for pumping irrigation water.
Weslaco, TX.--Conduct research on conservation tillage systems
under subtropical conditions and develop management systems that
conserve moisture and prevent wind erosion.
Pullman, WA.--Characterize the effect of soil freezing on water
infiltration, soil strength, erodibility of soils, and emission of PM-
10 dust. Develop integrated management systems to protect the
environment and the atmosphere. Develop integrated wheat cropping
systems for the Northwest.
Wenatchee, WA.--Determine the primary causal agents of apple and
cherry replant disease in the Northwest and develop soil-treatment
preventive measures.
Prosser, WA.--Develop agricultural production systems that
incorporate reduced use of pesticides, manage on-farm and off-farm
natural resources, and promote economic potato production.
Kearneysville, WV.--Develop integrated and biologically-based
alternatives to methyl bromide for controlling soilborne pathogens
fruit production. Design and develop water reuse and recycling systems
for integrated greenhouse and aquaculture operations that minimize the
impact of effluent discharge.
Beckley, WV.--Develop management systems to optimize plant growth
on acid soils using natural and industrial by-products. Select forage
and crop plants that are genetically adapted for growth on acid soils.
Develop management strategies to protect water quality and enhance
livestock profitability in the Appalachian hill-lands.
Mr. Skeen. Since we are always looking for ways to manage more
efficiently, could this research be more effective if consolidated?
Response. There are only limited opportunities to make the research
more efficient through consolidation. However, the fiscal year 1998
budget proposals for ARS do reflect the termination of soil and water
management research projects at several locations, in part based on the
fact that other ARS laboratories are conducting related research that
could be broadly applicable on a regional basis. Generally speaking,
however, local differences in climatic patterns, soils, and crops make
it necessary to conduct research at diverse locations to assess the
resource conservation and environmental impacts of agricultural
production systems on a national basis. Multiple year studies are
essential to capture the production and environmental impacts of year-
to-year climatic variability. Integrated research on the movement of
water, nutrients, and agricultural chemicals is needed to fully address
issues related to crop and animal production and environmental quality.
Efficient strategies of resource use must consider not only energy,
water, and other inputs into food and fiber production systems, but
also the effects of land use and treatment on wildlife populations and
habitats and on the quality of soil and water. Therefore, the soil and
water laboratories do more than soil and water research. ARS is a model
for efficient research consolidation that provides critical information
at regional and national levels for improving agricultural productivity
and environmental quality.
soybean research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with soybean research, by location.
Response. We have research on soybeans at 28 locations. The program
is a nationally managed, fully coordinated, multidisciplinary approach
to solving production and postharvest issues of soybeans. The
objectives of this research by location will be provided for the
record.
Albany, CA.--Genetic modification of soybean oil for industrial
use.
Ames, IA.--Genetic research for soybean improvement.
Beltsville, MD.--Develop improved varieties with desired genetic
traits such as resistance to pathogens and insects, and suppression of
weeds, and develop management/crop models.
Brookings, SD.--Integrated crop management systems.
Columbus, OH.--Production optimization, water quality, and flooding
tolerance.
Columbia, MO.--Cropping systems and water management strategies.
Coshocton, OH.--Management practices for erosion control and water
quality.
Florence, SC.--Development of cropping systems to optimize water
management.
Fort Collins, CO.--Acquisition, maintenance, and preservation of
germplasm.
Frederick, MD.--Molecular characterization of soybean dwarf virus.
Gainesville, FL.--Environmental, physiological, and genetic
limitations to production.
Ithaca, NY.--Genetic enhancement of nutritional quality.
Lincoln, NE.--Management practices to maximize production
efficiency.
Madison, WI.--Minimize harmful effects of bacterial pathogens.
Manhattan, KS.--Grain odor assessment technology.
Mayaguez, PR.--Winter nursery facilities to accelerate improved
variety development.
Morris, MN.--Environmental and crop management limitations to
production.
New Orleans, LA.--Biomodification of soybean oil to value-added
products.
Oxford, MS.--Develop sustainable cropping system.
Peoria, IL.--Product development, conversion of oil and protein for
new industrial uses.
Raleigh, NC.--Eliminate genetic and physiological limitations in
production and enhance nitrogen fixation.
St. Paul, MN.--Management and cropping practices affecting water
quality.
Stoneville, MS.--Develop insect resistant germplasm and improve
weed control techniques, and host resistance to soybean cyst nematodes.
Tifton, GA.--Develop pesticide technology for control of nematodes,
weeds, and insects.
Urbana, IL.--Develop comprehensive soybean production technologies
and maintain, evaluate, and distribute germplasm.
West Lafayette, IN.--Management practices for weed and disease
control, and develop improved germplasm.
Wooster, OH.--Management practices for pest control and to develop
germplasm for divergent environments.
Wyndmoor, PA.--Develop oil products for industrial use.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the agency's accomplishments in soybean
research in recent years?
Response. ARS focuses its soybean research on developing new uses
for soybeans and on increasing soybean production efficiency so that
production costs are lowered and soybeans are more competitive in the
global market. Several ink formulations have been developed by
scientists at Peoria, Illinois. This work resulted in a patent being
issued for newspaper printing ink and a pending patent for heat-set and
sheet-fed printing inks. Market potential use of soy or vegetable oil
in ink formations is estimated at one billion pounds or eight percent
of domestic soybean oil production and would represent a 300 percent
increase in current industrial use of soybean oil. Modified soybean oil
continues to be evaluated as an alternative for diesel fuel by
developing cost-effective technology for conversion to fatty acid
esters and commercial testing of performance enhancing additives. Work
is progressing on use of soy foamed plywood glues. Soybeans could be
used as a foaming agent for softwood plywood adhesives, replacing blood
protein at a lower cost. Work is also continuing to develop soybean-
derived lubricants that are biodegradable and friendly when lost to the
environment such as when used on chainsaws.
Significant advancement has been made toward broadening the genetic
base of soybeans by obtaining hundreds of soybean lines from China and
adding these to the soybean collection maintained at Urbana, Illinois.
The soybean plant originated in China and adding new lines brings new
genes for pest resistance and for developing new value-added products.
The nation's commercial soybean varieties are descended from a small
number of ancestral lines. Thirty-five lines account for more than 95%
of the genes in all commercial varieties grown in the United States.
Soybean lines also have been developed that are expected to have longer
shelf-lives without developing rancidity, and other lines have less
capability of developing off-flavors. The projected cost savings for
processors is about $200 million per year. A new variety, jointly
released with the University of Illinois, lacks an enzyme inhibitor
that interferes with protein digestion by people and animals, thus
making the meal a higher quality and more nutritious feed. This will
considerably increase the feeding efficiency of animal fed soymeal.
Progress continues in identifying new lines with resistance to nematode
infections and other disease organisms. Drought-resistant germplasm is
nearing the stage of public release, and lines have been identified
that will contribute flooding tolerance genes to soybeans. A new
soyfood variety, ``Pearl,'' has been released and provides a new high-
value product for export to Japan. Another variety recently released
demonstrates it is possible to achieve simultaneous increase in
protein, oil, and yield. The high protein variety, ``Prolina'', should
deliver high protein meal for the poultry and swine feed industry.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for soybean
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientist Funds Scientist Funds Scientist
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, CA................................. $593,300 2.6 $559,300 2.5 $82,000 0.5
Ames, IA................................... 811,500 2.2 803,300 2.2 624,400 1.0
Athens, GA................................. 167,600 0.6 .......... ......... .......... .........
Auburn, AL................................. 199,900 0.8 .......... ......... .......... .........
Beltsville, MD............................. 4,297,300 15.3 4,514,600 15.3 4,342,800 14.3
Brookings, SD.............................. 26,000 0.1 148,600 1.0 148,600 1.0
Columbus, OH............................... 100,200 0.4 99.200 0.4 99,200 0.4
Columbia, MO............................... 270,500 0.8 267,700 0.8 220,500 0.8
Coshocton, OH.............................. 70,100 0.3 69,400 0.3 69,400 0.3
Fargo, ND.................................. 43,200 0.2 .......... ......... .......... .........
Florence, SC............................... 204,000 0.8 198,400 0.8 198,400 0.8
Ft. Collins, CO............................ 231,400 0.5 279,100 0.5 279,100 0.5
Frederick, MD.............................. 27,400 0.1 83,900 0.1 83,900 0.1
Gainesville, FL............................ 53,400 ......... 52,900 ......... 52,900 .........
Ithaca, NY................................. 148,200 0.6 22,100 0.6 .......... .........
Lincoln, NE................................ 64,600 0.2 63,900 0.2 63,900 0.2
Madison, WI................................ 20,300 0.1 21,200 0.1 21,200 0.1
Manhattan, KS.............................. 129,500 0.6 128,200 0.6 128,200 0.6
Mayaguez, PR............................... 121,500 0.1 120,200 0.1 120,200 0.1
Morris, MN................................. 379,600 1.3 249,700 1.3 249,700 1.3
New Orleans, LA............................ 1,125,400 5.0 1,063,100 4.0 1,063,100 4.0
Oxford, MS................................. 102,100 0.3 101,000 0.3 101,000 0.3
Peoria, IL................................. 5,864,800 18.8 5,643,200 18.0 5,585,400 18.0
Raleigh, NC................................ 996,800 6.0 1,022,600 6.0 1,022,600 6.0
St. Paul, MN............................... 310,600 1.3 307,500 0.9 307,500 0.9
Stoneville, MS............................. 3,551,500 11.8 3,515,500 12.0 3,515,500 12.0
Tifton, GA................................. 146,800 0.4 64,000 0.4 64,000 0.4
Urbana, IL................................. 2,568,700 11.1 2,117,800 11.1 1,603,400 9.1
W. Lafayette, IN........................... 802,000 3.0 793,900 3.0 793,900 3.0
Wooster, OH................................ 300,600 1.4 297,500 1.4 87,400 0.4
Wyndmoor, PA............................... 748,800 2.7 741,300 2.7 741,300 2.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 24,477,600 89.4 23,349,100 86.6 21,669,500 78.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nal usage indicators
Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 162 of last
year's hearing record on usage indicators of the National Agricultural
Library.
Response. I will provide an update to the table that reflects NAL
usage indicators to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and estimated
usages for 1997 and 1998.
NAL USAGE INDICATORS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------
1997 1998
1996 estimated estimated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Delivery Requests Filled 154,314 152,000 150,000
Reference Requests............... 41,430 42,000 43,000
Current Awareness Profiles \1\... 61,572 62,000 63,000
Accesses to NAL Electronic Info
\2\............................. 3,608,206 5,000,000 8,000,000
--------------------------------------
Total \3\.................. 3,865,522 5,256,000 8,256,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consists of total number of Profiles entered and maintained.
Previous figures were based on individual search strategies
maintained.
\2\ Access to NAL electronic information resources is becoming an
increasingly important usage indicator. Consists of total number of
times users accessed NAL's electronic information resources either
through network connection or by dial-up.
\3\ Statistics for online and CD-ROM database searches are no longer
being collected. NAL users are now more sophisticated concerning the
use of electronic media, and physical access to databases has been
enhanced for users at the Library. NAL provides access to the
databases and basic assistance and training for users. Consequently,
users are performing many of the searches themselves.
nal repair and maintenance
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a list of all repair and maintenance
activities anticipated in fiscal year 1997.
Response. The projected repair and maintenance activities at NAL
are:
Construction of the balance of the Phase I sprinkler project.. $275,000
Design of the first, third, fourth, and fifth floor renovation 300,000
Design of a replacement cooling tower......................... 40,000
Improved security system for the NAL collection............... 85,000
Miscellaneous/emergency repairs............................... 200,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 900,000
corn germ plasm
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the work you have underway on corn germ
plasm.
Response. The Germplasm Enhancement of Maize--GEM--Project is an
unprecedented public/private research effort to strengthen U.S. corn
hybrids brought about by rescuing and using irreplaceable Latin
American germplasm. Its goal is to identify useful new grain and forage
characteristics in the exotic corn germplasm which can be bred into new
hybrids for delivery to U.S. farmers.
The cooperation includes 18 private companies and 36 State and
Federal public scientists working together to intermate elite private
and public sector germplasm with 268 elite selections of maize
identified in the Latin American Maize Project--LAMP, coordinated by
the USDA in cooperation with 12 Latin American countries. After the
initial crosses, the germplasm is broadly shared among scientists to
identify useful economic traits, such as for quality, performance, and
to reduce biotic and abiotic stresses.
Broadening the genetic base of commercial corn hybrids, identifying
host plant resistance to common pests, and improving productivity of
the corn plant are all goals of the GEM project. Host plant resistances
offer the most promise to help reduce chemical control treatments which
contaminate the soil and pollute the water resources upon which we are
dependent. Stress resistance factors can play a role in drought
tolerance and the overall reduction of irrigation water to the crop.
The likeness of genomes among the grass family, genome syntony, helps
this project play a role in improving other grass family crops. A gene
found in corn which controls a specific trait is likely conserved in
the other important grasses such as sorghum, rice, and wheat, and
opposite. This opens the opportunity for crop advances in related
genera. Latin American countries that participated in the LAMP project
will have access to the germplasm developed in GEM upon its release at
various stages of the project. Currently, insufficient funding for this
project limits their full participation.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for corn germ
plasm in fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ames, IA................................... $333,300 1.0 $330,700 1.0 $330,700 1.0
Raleigh, NC................................ 166,700 1.0 165,300 1.0 165,300 1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 500,000 2.0 496,000 2.0 496,000 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture Research Investment
Mr. Skeen. Can you tell us how much money is invested in
agricultural research in the U.S. by the Federal Government,
Universities, and the private sector?
Response. Approximately $6.3 billion were invested in agricultural
research in 1992. Of that amount, $1.6 billion was invested by the
Federal Government, $1 billion by the States, and an estimated $3.8
billion by the private sector. Those investments supported $1 billion
of agricultural research in USDA; $2 billion in State Agricultural
Experiment Stations, universities and colleges; and an estimated $3.4
billion in the private sector.
Mr. Skeen. Can you tell us how this investment compares with other
industrialized nations of the world?
Response. In absolute expenditures, the U.S. funds more public
agricultural research than any other single country. However, this gap
has been closing since the 1960's. In the early 1980's the EC as a
whole surpassed the U.S. in absolute expenditures. Measured in terms of
percentage of agricultural GDP, in the early 1980's U.S. public
expenditures were lower than our major trade competitors, for example
Canada and Australia, approximately the same as northern Europe and
considerably higher than southern Europe. Statistics on private
investments are harder to obtain and less reliable. However, estimates
suggest that in 1985 absolute expenditures on private agricultural
research in the U.S. were considerably less than in northern Europe and
somewhat larger than in Japan. I am submitting for the record a chart
that provides an international comparison of spending for public
agricultural research.
[Chart follows:]
[Page 111--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. Can you tell us to what extent we share our research
results with other countries and they with us?
Response. The REE agencies and agency researchers have considerable
interaction with international agriculture research and education
institutions around the world, all of which involve, in one way or
another, sharing of research findings. U.S. scientists are part of the
international community of scientists engaged in agricultural research.
As participants in that community, they regularly share research
findings through the scientific literature and at conferences. In that
process they build on the results from research carried out in other
countries. The cloning research in Scotland that led to Dolly is an
example of such research. Exchange of personnel and formal joint
research programs, such as the U.S.-Israel Bilateral Agricultural
Research and Development program, also promote development of
complementary research agendas and sharing of research results. In yet
other arrangements, U.S. staff provide advice on linking research to
formal and informal education and in the process learn from other
institutions.
Mr. Skeen. How much money or what percent of USDA research
appropriations are now spent on chemical and non-chemical research on
crop and livestock pests and weeds? Are these resources focused on IPM
and, if not, why not?
Response. In fiscal year 1997, the REE agencies will spend an
estimated $171,722,000 on chemical and non-chemical research on crop
and livestock pests and weeds. For the most part these funds are
focused on IPM. ARS estimates $134,236,000 will be spent on chemical
and non-chemical research. All of these funds are targeted to develop
the pest control components of IPM systems. ERS allocates approximately
$2,600,000 for pest control, also designed to support IPM systems, and
CSREES spends approximately $34,886,000 on chemical and non-chemical
research.
laboratory closures--under secretary
Mr. Skeen. Last year, the Under Secretary testified that he
believed ARS could consolidate its research into 15 or 20 Centers of
Excellence. Is that your belief?
Response. The context of the Under Secretary's remarks made last
year was related to his vision for the future of the ARS facilities.
There had been no comprehensive study of the feasibility of the
development of the concept of Centers of Excellence. I do not believe
we can transform the intramural research system to a network of 15 to
20 Centers of Excellence without in-depth review and study. The
Strategic Planning Task Force authorized in FAIR 96 allows us the
opportunity to do such a review and explore the adoption of the concept
of Centers of Excellence.
Mr. Skeen. The Farm Bill provides for a task force to review and
examine research facilities and make recommendations as to their needs?
Is this task force operational?
Response. The nomination process for membership on the Strategic
Planning Task Force as described in FAIR 96 has been completed and the
task force should be appointed in the very near future. As soon as the
membership of the task force is confirmed, staff and financing is in
place to begin the review immediately. The task force will have 2 years
from the date of appointment to complete the study.
Mr. Skeen. How many members are to be involved and how will they be
chosen?
Response. The FAIR 96 directs that there will be 15 members on the
task force appointed by the Secretary from nominations submitted by the
Research, Education, Extension and Economics Advisory Board. The
Advisory Board submitted a list of 48 nominations from which the
appointments are being made.
Mr. Skeen. What criteria will they utilize to review the Federal
Facilities? Will they make judgments based on structural, i.e., bricks
and mortar needs or will decisions be based on programmatic aspects of
research? What kinds of programmatic issues will be addressed? Please
provide this Committee with a detailed list of criteria, issues, and
areas of concern to be evaluated by this task force.
Response. I am submitting for the record a brief paper outlining
the charge and criteria to be used by the Task Force in conducting
their review.
[Pages 113 - 116--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. How will the task force be funded and how much money are
we dealing with?
Response. The task force will be funded from redirected existing
funds from within the REE mission area of the Department. A total of
$937,000 has been budgeted over the 2-year life of the task force to
cover all costs, including staff salaries, data collection, task force
meeting expenses and preparation and printing of the report.
project terminations--under secretary
Mr. Skeen. The 1998 Budget requests a number of research project
terminations necessary to fund the Administration's new program
requests. A significant number of the decreases recommended for
termination are important research projects that the Congress
recommended to be included in this year's budget. It appears that the
Department doesn't think Congressional research priorities are
important. Where was the decision made to eliminate Congressional
priorities included in the 1997 budget? At the agency, the Department
or OMB?
Response. Decisions on termination of all projects are based on
agency assessments and recommendations that are subsequently reviewed
at the Department level and at OMB.
Mr. Skeen. Is it your thinking that the Administration has the only
knowledge of important research needs in this country?
Response. Clearly the Administration does not have a monopoly on
knowledge of important research needs in this country. However, the
program decisions embedded in the budget are based, to a considerable
extent, on formal and informal discussions with government officials
that take place throughout the year. These conversations are held with
the broad range of individuals and institutions, including producers,
environmentalists, scientists at universities and in the private
sector, consumers, and agribusinesses who are concerned about the
future of our food and fiber system. The budget represents our
assessment of the best way to invest limited Federal research and
development funds to achieve broad national goals and address pressing
national issues.
project terminations--ars
Mr. Skeen. Congress receives information on critical research needs
from a diverse crosssection of stakeholders in agricultural research
throughout the nation. Research that impacts production, trade,
environment, health and safety. We don't expect this indifference to
continue--especially in time of limited budgets. How did the research
agencies decide to terminate the specific projects that are listed in
the Explanatory Notes?
Response. In the Agricultural Research Service each project in the
Agency's portfolio was evaluated by the ARS senior management team
using the Project Evaluation Guide. After first establishing that the
activity was consistent with the Federal role, the guide was used to
evaluate projects based on relevance of the activity to National and
Departmental priorities; the resource capability and capacity of the
project to meet the stated objective, including facilities and human
resources; and the anticipated or current impact of the research on
science, the national economy, society and national policy. This Guide
was the same one used last year to evaluate the Agency's programs in
preparation for the President's fiscal year 1997 budget.
With respect to CSREES, CSREES proposed to eliminate those programs
and projects that were state specific and/or did not address current
national and regional priorities. In keeping with the Administration's
policy of awarding research, education, and extension grants through a
competitive, merit-review process, programs and projects earmarked for
specific institutions were also proposed for elimination. Depending on
whether it is a research or extension program or project proposed for
termination, it is possible that funding from basic formula programs,
the National Research Initiative, State and local governments, and/or
private sources could be used to continue aspects of the program deemed
to be of a high priority at State or local levels.
Mr. Skeen. ARS has over 100 locations. On what basis did the Agency
determine Mandan, North Dakota and Prosser, Washington should be
closed?
Response. The Agency does not consider any of its ongoing projects
as low priority. However, because of critical research needs in the
areas proposed for increases in FY 1998, some ongoing projects deemed
less critical are proposed for termination. While the projects at
Mandan and Prosser have contributed to the solution of agricultural
problems, they are considered less essential to continue under a
constrained Federal budget. The Prosser Washington, location currently
has seven research projects. Three of these existing projects are
proposed for retention and transfer to other locations. The Bean and
Pea Germplasm project will be transferred to Pullman, Washington; the
Potato Variety project will be transferred to Aberdeen, Idaho; and
funds for an IR-4 minor use and pesticide evaluation project on
Herbicide Efficacy and Residues will be returned to Headquarters to be
redistributed to other high priority area wide IR-4 projects. The
remaining four research projects at this location are proposed for
termination. These projects focus on precision agriculture in the
context of center pivot irrigation in potato and wheat production and
similar research is carried out at Ft. Collins, Colorado, and Florence,
South Carolina.
The Mandan, North Dakota, location currently has four research
projects. The research project on Integrated Forage-Livestock Systems
will be retained but relocated to the ARS laboratory at Miles City,
Montana, where it will be consolidated with similar research underway.
Three other Mandan projects will be terminated. These focus on water
management systems; soil management; and forage germplasm. Similar
research on water management is being conducted at ARS locations in
Akron, Colorado; Sidney, Montana; and Bushland, Texas. Research related
to soil management is conducted at Lubbock, Temple and Weslaco, Texas
and research to improve forage germplasm is carried out at ARS
locations in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Logan, Utah.
Mr. Skeen. Last year the department closed locations at Durant,
Oklahoma and Bozeman, Montana. What program benefit and cost savings
has been achieved from these consolidations?
Response. Consolidating the research activities of Durant and El
Reno is expected to provide an administrative savings amounting to
$171,900 in FY 1997. Consolidation will provide the Southern Plains
Area with an agricultural research program that produces information
and technology which effectively deals with water, soil, and climate as
an integral part of livestock and crop production systems. The
consolidation of the Durant and El Reno laboratories will also enable
ARS to enhance the coordination of regional research programs and share
scientific expertise with ARS laboratories in Woodward, Oklahoma;
Bushland and Temple, Texas; and Booneville, Arkansas. Research will
focus on forage components; farmland livestock-forage systems on a farm
scale; watershed hydrologic processes in large, complex, heterogeneous
watersheds; and wetlands, riparian zones, and other landscape elements
as they ecologically fit into large-scale watershed systems.
Consolidating the research activities of Bozeman and Sidney is
expected to provide an annual savings of $45,500 which includes rent
for office, greenhouse, storage space, network charges, phone and
recharge fees by moving to government-owned facilities. Also, annual
savings of $114,000 in administrative support will be saved by
consolidating the programs at Sidney. Consolidation will provide the
Northern Plains Area with an agricultural research program that
provides better information and technology to our customers throughout
Montana and elsewhere in the Northern Great Plains. The consolidation
will preserve the high priority research of current programs and allow
for the development of an integrated crop and pest management program.
This transfer will also place our research programs in a much stronger
and more defensible position to proceed and to cooperate with other
existing ARS, private sector and university research partners.
Mr. Skeen. In REE, were decisions to close locations and terminate
projects and grants done on a detailed evaluation basis? Please provide
details on this process to the Committee?
Response. In the Agricultural Research Service each project in the
Agency's portfolio was evaluated by the ARS senior management team
using the Project Evaluation Guide. After first establishing that the
activity was consistent with the Federal role, the guide was used to
evaluate projects based on relevance of the activity to National and
Departmental priorities; the resource capability and capacity of the
project to meet the stated objective, including facilities and human
resources; and the anticipated or current impact of the research on
science, the national economy, society and national policy. This Guide
was the same one used last year to evaluate the Agency's programs in
preparation for the President's fiscal year 1997 budget.
With respect to CSREES, CSREES proposed to eliminate those programs
and projects that were state specific and/or did not address current
national and regional priorities. In keeping with the Administration's
policy of awarding research, education, and extension grants through a
competitive, merit-review process, programs and projects earmarked for
specific institutions were also proposed for elimination. Depending on
whether it is a research or extension program or project proposed for
termination, it is possible that funding from basic formula programs,
the National Research Initiative, State and local governments, and/or
private sources could be used to continue aspects of the program deemed
to be of a high priority at State or local levels.
Mr. Skeen. In ARS, how many scientists and support personnel will
be impacted by the proposed project terminations?
Response. Fifty-nine scientists and 95 support staff for a total of
154 permanent positions will be impacted by the proposed project
terminations.
Mr. Skeen. Please detail ARS project terminations by location,
funding and staff years.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 120 - 124--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. Please identify ARS' dollar resources on commodities and
identifiable diseases and pests that will be reduced as a result of the
proposed project terminations.
Response. A number of commodities and identifiable diseases and
pests will be reduced as a result of project terminations. Although
program increases of $30,114,000 are being proposed which may result in
actual increases in some areas, the following major commodities and
identifiable diseases and pests will still reflect decreased research
efforts in fiscal year 1998: aquaculture, small fruits and nuts, corn,
forage, rice, grain sorghum, soybeans, peanuts, potatoes, sugar crops,
oilseed/oil crops, composting, lyme disease, pear thrips, formosan
termite, and Russian wheat aphid. Those areas of research that are
projected to have net increases include citrus, wheat, cotton, poultry,
beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, weeds, microorganisms, plants,
sweetpotato whitefly, bollworm, beet armyworm, European corn borer,
tobacco budworm, bollweevil, Colorado potato beetle, insects, karnal
bunt, salmonellosis, E. coli, parasite diseases, scrapies, bovine
virus, bovine influenza, newcastle disease, African swine fever,
listeriosis, foot and mouth disease, tuberculosis and Johnes disease,
campylobacter, weed control and pest control.
project terminations
Mr. Skeen. In REE, identify significant areas of research that will
be reduced as a result of the proposed project terminations; i.e.,
sustainable research, new uses for agricultural commodities; pest
management; research to promote exports; production efficiency
research; rural development, etc.
Response. No significant area of research will be totally reduced
as a result of the proposed selected project terminations. Some of
these terminations are categorized in the following program areas: new
uses for agricultural commodities; sustainable agriculture; plant
production; biotechnology and pest management. However, the FY 1998
budget is requesting reallocation of the resources associated with the
project terminations to higher priority projects and areas of research
including Human Nutrition, Food Safety, Genetic Resources and Emerging
Infectious Diseases, Grazinglands, Integrated Pest Management and the
South Florida Ecosystems Restoration Initiative.
Mr. Skeen. In ARS, list funding for projects terminated from 1995
through 1997.
Response. A list of projects which were terminated as part of the
budget reallocation process from fiscal year 1995 through 1997 will be
provided for the record.
[Pages 126 - 128--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. ARS plans to reduce management costs at Headquarters in
1998. How will this be accomplished? Reflect savings in dollars and
staff years by function and organization.
Response. The reduction of $550,000 in management costs in fiscal
year 1998 is tentatively planned to be applied proportionally to the
ARS Headquarters program and administrative support staffs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
----------------------------
Headquarters Staff 1997 Savings
Estimate 1998 Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Management:
Office of the Administrator.. $3,140,462 $3,094,925 $45,537
Civil Rights Staff........... 907,226 894,071 13,155
Budget and Program Management
Staff....................... 1,264,758 1,246,419 18,339
Information Staff............ 3,679,765 3,626,408 53,357
Office of Technology Transfer 1,724,304 1,699,302 25,002
National Program Staff....... 7,554,790 7,445,246 109,544
--------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 18,271,305 18,006,371 264,934
======================================
Administration and Financial
Management:
Deputy Administrator, AFM.... 1,571,887 1,549,094 22,793
Human Resources Division..... 7,829,323 7,714,682 114,641
Financial Management Division 1,603,623 1,580,370 23,253
Extramural Agreements
Division.................... 205,114 202,140 2,974
Procurement and Property
Division.................... 2,254,042 2,221,358 32,684
Facilities Division.......... 3,896,082 3,839,589 56,493
Admin Info and Tech Division. 2,222,614 2,190,386 32,228
--------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 19,582,685 19,297,619 285,066
======================================
Total...................... 37,853,990 37,303,990 550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. Provide funding and staff years for Headquarters and
field management by organization for fiscal years 1996-1998.
Response. Fiscal years 1996-1998 funding and staff years for
Headquarters and field management are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding:
HQ.......................................................... $44,168,024 $47,255,187 $46,705,187
Field....................................................... $15,582,455 $15,127,800 $15,127,800
Staff Years:
HQ.......................................................... 526 526 515
Field....................................................... 243 243 243
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. ARS plans to reduce management costs in its Headquarters
and field offices in fiscal year 1999. How much will be saved at
Headquarters and in the field through this action?
Response. ARS intends to reduce its management costs by an
additional $1,250,000 in FY 1999 to alleviate the impact of decreased
appropriations to ARS' research activities. The Headquarters and field
program and administrative management activities will share in these
reductions.
Mr. Skeen. How many field/area management offices does ARS
currently maintain? Where are these offices located. Provide funding
and staff years for each.
Response. ARS currently maintains eight field/area management
offices. The following provides the location and FY 1997 funding and
staff years for each.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff
Funding years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beltsville........................................ $2,850,400 11
North Atlantic.................................... 1,642,200 30
Midwest........................................... 1,744,200 34
Pacific West...................................... 2,231,800 47
Northern Plains................................... 1,851,100 31
Southern Plains................................... 1,464,900 30
Mid South......................................... 1,539,100 28
South Atlantic.................................... 1,804,100 32
---------------------
Total....................................... 15,127,800 243
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. What functions are carried out at your Area management
sites?
Response. Our eight Area Offices provide executive leadership for
operational planning and implementation of broad goal-oriented research
and management programs within their respective areas; recommend
research priorities and projects, budget, and use of facilities based
on perceived needs of agriculture; provide leadership and direction to
systematic identification of research needs, planning research
approaches, forecasting required resources, and evaluating Area program
implementation in the context of ARS plans; inform the Administrator of
program and related considerations which could have significant impact
on the overall ARS research program and management activities; manage
human and other resources to carry out ARS plans; collaborate with
other Areas and cooperators to carry out joint research; and advise the
Administrator and other Agency officials on technical and
administrative problems. Within each Area Office there is an Area
Administrative Office Staff. This staff is responsible for assisting
the Area Director in implementing and managing ARS research programs
within the area; participating in executing Area management policies;
providing direct operational support to the Area and the ARS mission in
the management of personnel, equipment, services and construction
acquisition, real and personal property, research agreements, budget
execution and financial control, safety and health management programs,
automated information management systems, and engineering management.
Where the Area Administrative Office is co-located with an ARS research
location, administrative management support is also provided for the
location by the Area Administrative Office.
Mr. Skeen. Are any of these administrative functions carried out at
research locations below the Area management level?
Response. Yes, some of the administrative functions performed
within the Area Administrative Office are also performed, to a lesser
degree, at the research location level.
Mr. Skeen. Provide the Committee with a detailed listing of
administrative functions carried out by ARS in Headquarters, area
offices and research locations. List these functions by location and
provide funding and staff years.
Response. Human resources functions are primarily performed at the
ARS Headquarters level, with some limited delegated authorities at the
ARS Area Office and Location level. Budget and finance; procurement and
contracting; facility, property, and space management; and safety and
health responsibilities are performed, under varying degrees of
delegated authority, at the Headquarters, Area, and Location levels.
The following tables list administrative functions carried out by
ARS in Headquarters, area offices and research locations and shows
funding and staff years. The table reflecting positions at the location
level are not broken down by administrative functions since the
positions at this level are multifunctional, providing services across
the administrative function assignment areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997
estimated costs
-----------------------
Staff
Funding years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters:
Function:
Personnel............................... $8,400,000 150.5
Financial............................... 1,822,500 30.5
Contracts............................... 2,224,800 36.7
Facilities.............................. 4,104,600 55.9
Computer................................ 3,363,600 48.6
-----------------------
Total................................. 19,915,500 322.2
=======================
Area Offices:
Function:
Personnel............................... 598,200 15.0
Financial............................... 2,580,400 53.2
Contracts............................... 3,653,300 78.2
Facilities.............................. 2,846,800 43.5
Computer................................ 1,361,500 23.6
-----------------------
Total................................. 11,040,200 213.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Pages 132 - 134--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. How does ARS intend to reduce its Area management costs
proposed in 1999? Given advances in electronic and information
technologies, what considerations will be given to consolidation of
many of these activities?
Response. ARS will continue to look for all opportunities to
utilize technology advances in carrying out the Agency's mission. Over
the past several years the Agency has undergone a significant reduction
in the number of administrative support positions and has consolidated
and in some cases eliminated all together redundant overhead functions.
ARS has clustered administrative support functions in the field where
appropriate and we have managed our administrative resources to ensure
that only those critical functions are maintained. I have also
established a cross functional Agency team of ARS managers and
employees to assist me in the identification of additional
opportunities for management savings.
In terms of electronic and information technologies, ARS currently
has or is participating in several initiatives underway to make greater
use of technology which will help us in achieving future savings. These
include:
Financial Information System Vision (FISVIS), a Departmental
initiative, will seek to modernize outdated financial accounting and
reporting systems. Improved financial system applications will offer
agencies greater opportunities to meet streamlining goals and move data
electronically.
USDA Reengineering Purchase Card Management System. ARS has been an
active participant in the pilot test for this system which utilizes
modern personal computer technology and client/server software tools to
streamline the acquisition process. The reengineered system will
provide for online reconciliation of monthly statements by cardholders,
eliminating several current steps and paper transactions. Full
deployment of the new system will begin in October 1997. Based on
annual credit card transactions totaling 94,000, ARS should save $1.4
million in administrative costs each year.
Vacancy Announcement Distribution. The Human Resources Division is
providing full-text vacancy announcements on the ARS Internet Home Page
and the Office of Personnel Management's Federal Job Opportunity Board
(FJOB) for all ARS vacant positions. Printed copies of the ARS vacancy
announcement are only being distributed to a limited number of
addresses for organizations and schools representing minorities,
veterans, and people with disabilities. Use of electronic technology to
publish ARS vacancy opportunities will save ARS over $100,000 annually
on printing and distribution costs.
Office automation technology such as e-mail, voice mail and word
processing systems make communicating easier, quicker and less
expensive. Using technology such as Wide Area Networking and Internet
make it possible for people at different locations to quickly and
easily share information. It also becomes possible for information to
be stored at one place so it is easy to keep up to date and also
accessible to employees at many locations when they need it.
Use of Two-Way Video Conferencing makes it possible to reduce the
travel cost associated with people at different locations working
together. ARS also uses satellite downlink technology to provide
agency-wide training and information sharing sessions with dramatically
reduced travel costs.
Mr. Skeen. What efficiencies can be achieved in ongoing human
nutrition research; i.e., consolidation of resources, termination of
lower priority research investigations, operational efficiencies, etc.?
Response. In a recent evaluation of all ARS research projects, all
human nutrition research projects were rated highly and none were
identified for termination because of a low evaluation rating.
Consolidation of resources and operational efficiencies have been
identified and put into place to accommodate past funding limitations.
This includes, at the ARS Human Nutrition Research Centers, energy
saving modifications in facilities and equipment; reductions in
professional support and administrative staff enabled by increasing the
use of computers, new computer software, and robotic scientific
equipment; reductions in the number of temporary scientists
(postdoctorates and visiting scientists); elimination of positions of
retiring and departing scientists with incorporation of critical
components of their projects that would have a high impact on human
health and well-being into other programs; reductions in Cooperative
Agreements to accomplish research; and expansion of outside funding for
research projects.
Mr. Skeen. How much of your nutrition research is in support of
food and nutrition programs carried out by the Department; chronic
disease research in support of biomedical initiatives at NIH; food
intakes requirements of EPA and other regulatory agencies?
Response. The Agricultural Research Service has the primary
responsibility for developing fundamental information on human nutrient
requirements that provide the basis for development of dietary
guidelines and for food assistance programs that prevent disease and
maintain good health. The ARS is also responsible for the Continuing
Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) which is a nationwide
survey that measures the kinds and amounts of food eaten by Americans,
and uniquely links diet and health knowledge and attitudes of
individuals with their food and nutrient intake. The CSFII is used by
Federal agencies such as EPA as a primary source of continuing and
timely food consumption data for food and nutrition-related policies,
regulations, and programs, including the evaluation of the adequacy of
American diets for meeting Federal dietary guidelines and
recommendations, development of food fortification, enrichment, and
labeling policies, and for safety issues such as estimating exposure to
pesticide residues, food additives, and contaminants. The ARS allocated
actual funds of $13.1 million in FY 1996, and estimated funds of $8.5
million in FY 1997 and $14.6 million in FY 1998 for nutritional status
and food intake projects. Part of the mission of the ARS is to study
the importance of nutrition in the prevention of chronic disease. The
ARS does not perform research in support of biomedical initiatives at
NIH that involve the treatment of disease or understanding non-
nutritional related biochemical changes that occur in chronic disease;
this is the mission of NIH.
Mr. Skeen. You are requesting $12 million for nutrition research.
If Congress provides half of these resources, how would they be
implemented?
Response. The $12 million is for two distinct purposes; $6 million
for a supplemental survey on the food consumption patterns of infants
and children so that the Environmental Protection Agency can be
provided with a valid sample size with which the pesticide intakes by
children can be adequately estimated, and $6 million for the six ARS
Human Nutrition Research Centers ($1 million each) so that they can
initiate new programs that will help in the fight against chronic
disease and generally improve the quality of life of all Americans. If
only $6 million is provided, the top priority will be to fund the
supplemental food survey in its entirety.
germplasm and genetic research
Mr. Skeen. Please identify appropriations received for plant
germplasm and genetic diversity initiatives from 1993 through 1997.
Response. Appropriations received for plan germplasm and genetic
diversity for fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 are:
$20,377,300, $20,432,900, $20,073,800, $19,487,300, and $20,057,900,
respectively. There was one increase for the genetic diversity
initiative of $500,000 in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Provide funding and staff years for plant germplasm
research and germplasm repositories for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
1998.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 137 - 183--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. ARS established a system of CRIS research project
accountability in the mid-eighties. This system was implemented to
assure that funds were allocated as directed by Congress. Is the
Committee correct in assuming the integrity of this system is still
maintained as initially described; i.e., that funds are allocated and
monitored by research project? Describe this process.
Response. The ARS Research Management Information System (RMIS)
continues to maintain the integrity of the research project
accountability by the research project. The project documentation and
fund accountability are maintained at the research unit level of the
Agency by the research project. The review and approval process is
performed electronically through the hierarchical line of authority.
Mr. Skeen. In Fiscal Year 1996, Congress provided funds for a
number of research projects. Provide the actual obligations incurred
for the following projects: Citrus Root Weevil; Wheat Virology; Citrus
Tristeza.
Response. The actual obligations incurred in fiscal year 1996 were
as follows: Citrus Root Weevil $430,709; Wheat Virology $432,825 and
Citrus Tristeza $855,693.
major issues in research
Mr. Skeen. Please identify the priority research issues or problems
in ARS' major areas of research: plant science, animal science, soil,
water, and air; post-harvest research, human nutrition, library
services, etc.
[The information follows:]
major programs and specific objectives
Soil, water, and air sciences
Specific objectives
Conserve and enhance soils.
Control and reduce soil erosion.
Ensure adequate water resources.
Protect and enhance water quality.
Manage and utilize agricultural and other wastes.
Improve the biodiversity of rangelands.
Preserve and restore wetlands.
Improve rangelands through the simulation of the relationships
among soil, water, vegetation, livestock, and climate.
Plant sciences
Specific objectives
Identify and protect genetic resources/biodiversity.
Breed crops for improved characteristics.
Develop new biological/biorational technology for pest control.
Reduce the need for chemical pesticides through the use of
integrated/areawide pest management systems.
Develop new technology to improve production efficiency and market
quality.
Improve small farm production systems to meet the needs of rural
America.
Identify the optimum combination of crops, soil management,
fertilizers, water management, and pest control for different soils and
climate conditions.
Animal sciences
Specific objectives
Utilize more effectively germplasm diversity, disease vectors,
recombinant DNA technology, gene mapping, and genetic engineering.
Accelerate genetic improvements.
Identify animals with genetic resistance to diseases.
Reduce losses from diseases and parasites.
Control tuberculosis and parasites in live animals.
Develop integrated animal/crop producing systems to make the best
use of existing natural resources.
major programs and specific objectives
Commodity conversion and delivery
Specific objectives
Maintain and improve food safety.
Develop new uses, new crops and alternative processing
technologies.
Manage postharvest disinfestation and develop alternative
quarantine treatments.
Maintain and enhance commodity quality.
Apply scientific/engineering principles to monitor and assess
changes during storage, transport, and delivery of agricultural
products.
Human nutrition
Specific objectives
Determine the nutritional needs of infants, children and pregnant
women.
Define the nutritional needs of the elderly to maintain health and
independence.
Identify the relationship between diet and resistance of diseases.
Survey/assess the nutritional status of the population.
Provide information on the nutrient composition of foods.
Identify the relationship between diet and cognitive ability in the
developing child and the elderly.
Agricultural information and library services
Specific objectives
Acquire, organize, manage, and provide access to agricultural
information.
Utilize technology to promote the availability of agricultural and
scientific information electronically.
Maximize access to agricultural information through collaborative
efforts.
Enhance global competitiveness through the international exchange
of agricultural information.
As a national library of the United States, provide stewardship of
the agricultural legacy of the nation by preserving and protecting
information for future generations.
extramural research
Mr. Skeen. Please provide research funding implemented through
extramural mechanisms utilized by ARS, such as research contracts,
grants, specific research agreements, etc.
Response. During fiscal year 1996, a total of $100 million of
research funding was implemented through extramural agreement
mechanisms.
Mr. Skeen. How much was obligated under each funding mechanism for
fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and estimated for fiscal years 1997 and
1998?
[The information follows:]
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Funding mechanism ---------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific cooperative agreements............................. 23.9 23.6 23.6 23.6
Research contracts.......................................... 17.0 18.0 18.1 18.1
Grant....................................................... 10.3 14.2 14.2 12.0
General type and cooperative agreement...................... 14.2 17.7 17.8 17.8
Research support agreements................................. 29.3 26.5 26.6 26.6
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 94.7 100.0 100.3 98.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ars scientists and staff years
Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of scientists and engineers by
discipline? How many scientists and engineers were on board October 1,
1996?
Response. The following table lists scientists and engineers by
discipline. There were 1,849 scientists and engineers on board October
1, 1996.
[Pages 186 - 187--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
ars scientists
Mr. Skeen. How many scientists and engineers were on board for the
past ten fiscal years? What are your projections through 2002?
Response. The following table lists actual scientists and engineers
on board at the end of fiscal year 1986 through 1996 and projected
numbers for fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
Fiscal year:
No. of SY
1986...................................................... 2,470
1987...................................................... 2,391
1988...................................................... 2,338
1989...................................................... 2,277
1990...................................................... 2,200
1991...................................................... 2,134
1992...................................................... 2,116
1993...................................................... 2,056
1994...................................................... 1,969
1995...................................................... 1,906
1996...................................................... 1,849
1997...................................................... 2,000
1998...................................................... 2,000
1999...................................................... 2,000
2000...................................................... 2,000
2001...................................................... 2,000
2002...................................................... 2,000
staff year ceiling
Mr. Skeen. Your staff year ceiling has been on a steep decline. How
does the agency plan to operate its laboratories efficiently if it
can't have the necessary personnel?
Response. Every effort will be made to take advantage of new
technological advances in computer equipment, scientific
instrumentation, and virtual scientific laboratories, in the operation
of our laboratories. Use of these advanced technologies should ensure
that our laboratories operate efficiently even as we continue to
downsize and streamline throughout ARS. In addition, consolidation of
locations will also be considered as a viable option for addressing the
declining FTE base and the decreasing operating resources into the
future.
streamlining effort
Mr. Skeen. Provide the table reflecting ARS' streamlining effort
from 1993 to 2002. Detail the specific positions to be reduced and
identify them by Headquarters and field.
Response. ARS streamlining targets were established based on the
overall guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Those requirements call for Agency streamlining plans to run through
Fiscal Year 1999. They also specifically outlined what positions were
to be covered including a special ``Headquarters'' category which
includes a select group of positions involved in the establishment of
Agency programmatic policy. These requirements also call for agencies
to report by FTE, Supervisors, Supervisory Ratio, Personnel
Specialists, Budget Specialists, Acquisition Specialists, Accountants
and Auditors, and Organizational Layers. The table below reflects
Agency Plans through the year 2002. The fiscal years beyond 1999 show
the same streamlining levels as 1999 since our Agency goals were all
targeted to be met by 1999.
STREAMLINING PLANS 1993 THROUGH 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999-
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTE's................................................... 8,423 7,950 7,618 7,614 7,800 7,614 7,591
Supervisors............................................. 729 709 670 594 597 577 570
Supervisory ratio....................................... 1:11 1:11 1:10 1:13 1:12 1:12 1:12
Headquarters............................................ 16 16 16 11 15 8 8
Personnel specialists................................... 157 157 143 141 143 138 133
Budget specialists...................................... 103 101 101 101 95 93 87
Acquisition specialists................................. 200 198 216 207 175 155 131
Accountants and auditors................................ 136 135 115 112 100 80 74
Organizational layers................................... 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
streamlining impact on ars locations
Mr. Skeen. How will streamlining impact ARS' ability to maintain
and operate over 100 research and management locations?
Response. As ARS continues to streamline to meet its goals, the
level of administrative support services in impacted areas will be
reduced. Currently ARS is able to maintain its facilities and expects
to do so for the next few years. However, eventually, the reduced
number of employees may have a negative impact with regard to
maintaining facilities.
ars scientists and staff years
Mr. Skeen. What is the current occupancy at each ARS laboratory?
What is projected for fiscal year 2002?
Response. The projected occupancy of each ARS laboratory by
scientists for fiscal year 2002 is 2,000. The current occupancy for ARS
research scientists (categories 1 and 4) as of February 28, 1997 of
each ARS laboratory will be provided for the record.
[Pages 190 - 193--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
buildings and facilities
Mr. Skeen. ARS is requesting $59.3 million for Building and
Facilities. The Committee notes a significant unexpended balance in the
Buildings and Facilities Account. Provide a listing by project of these
balances and explain why each balance exists.
Response. The following table identifies by project all unobligated
balances as of February 28, 1997.
[Pages 195 - 199--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
strategic plan and gpra
Mr. Skeen. Who will approve these plans? Did the agencies have
Strategic Plans already in place before GPRA requirements? How do the
draft strategic plans differ from existing strategic plans for each REE
agency?
Response. ARS has used strategic plans to guide the work of the
agency for almost 15 years. The earlier ARS strategic plans were
organized around broad areas of scientific activity such as; Soil,
water, and air; Plant productivity; Animal productivity; Commodity
conversion and delivery; Human nutrition; and Integration of systems.
These plans laid out, in considerable detail, the purpose and direction
of the research to be conducted. The new GPRA driven strategic plan is
organized around the following 5 broad societal goals; an agricultural
system that is highly competitive in the global economy; a safe and
secure food and fiber system, a healthy, well nourished population;
greater harmony between agriculture and the environment; and enhanced
economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans. The new
approach seeks to articulate the work of ARS in terms of its ultimate
outcome or benefit to American agriculture and to the broader society.
The ARS strategic plan has been approved by the Agency's Administrator,
and by the Acting Under Secretary for Research, Education and
Economics. The USDA Chief Financial Officer is responsible for
obtaining Departmental approval of the agency plans.
Mr. Skeen. ARS plans to collect statistics and provide estimates on
the value of the long-term benefits of its research to industry and
consumers in the areas of basis and applied research. How does ARS plan
to capture this data? Can it distinguish between the value and benefits
resulting from its research effort alone? How will this be done? On
what basis will ARS support its estimates in these areas?
Response. The Agency is in the very early stages of looking at how
we might estimate or determine the long term benefits of research to
consumers, stakeholders, and to the broader society. We have had some
informal discussions with the Economic Research Service but nothing has
evolved with enough certainty to allow us to respond in great detail at
this time.
status of current activities
Mr. Skeen. Your examples of progress state that biocontrol agents
reduce leafy spurge throughout the Northern Great Plains. How many
acres have been infested and how many acres have been eradicated as a
result of these biocontrol agents? Please identify the biocontrol
agents involved?.
Response. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) has infested an estimated
5 million acres in 29 states. This figure, however, is felt to be an
underestimate of the actual area infested by this pernicious, perennial
weed that is continuing to overrun and degrade grazing lands for cattle
and horses, and natural lands that supports wildlife, native plants and
human recreational activities. Eradication of this weed from North
America has not been the goal of State and Federal action agencies nor
private groups as the technical feasibility of eradication is beyond
current technology and even if possible would be prohibitively
expensive. Leafy spurge management activities have instead been
developed around the integrated use of chemical, cultural, and
biological control activities. ARS scientists at Sidney, Montana, and
Montpellier, France, have focused on the development of biological
control of leafy spurge.
In the past 5 years, ARS has worked with the USDA-Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a number of State Department's of
Agriculture, and many other private and governmental land managers to
identify, develop and implement biological control alternatives for
leafy spurge control throughout the Northern Plains States. Biological
control has been cited as the most cost effective means of controlling
this past as once the natural enemies become established, they
reproduce and spread on their own. Of the 29 leafy spurge infested
states, ARS scientists have provided one or more biological control
agents to cooperators in at least 20 of these locations. In the
Northern Plains, all states have been inoculated with most available
agents and in the centers of many of these release sites, leafy spurge
has been reduced by an estimated 85 percent. In these areas, leafy
spurge populations follow a general decline and desired grass species
are increasing dramatically in the place of this exotic weed.
Unfortunately, this process takes 5-7 years, has only been implemented
on less than 5 percent of the affected acreage and does not work in all
habitats. ARS scientists are working with state-based programs and
USDA-APHIS to expand the areas inoculated with biological control
agents and are continuing to identify, test and introduce new agents
into habitats where leafy spurge is not affected by existing natural
enemies.
Insect natural enemies that have been released as biological
control agents into the Northern Plains States include the: Minute
spurge flea beetle, Aphthona abdominalis; Brown dot leafy spurge flea
beetle, Aphthona cyparissiae; Black leafy spurge flea beetle, Aphthona
czwalinae; Copper leafy spurge flea beetle, Aphthona flava; Brown-
legged leafy spurge flea beetle, Aphthona lacertosa; Black dot leafy
spurge flea beetle, Aphthona nigriscutis; Hungarian clearwing moth,
Chamaesphecia hungarica; Leafy spurge hawkmoth, Hyles euphorbiae; Red-
headed leafy spurge stem borer, Oberea erythrocephala; Leafy spurge tip
gall midge, Spurgia esulae; and Leafy spurge sesid, Chamaesphecia
crassicornis.
Biological control agents under final testing by ARS in
Montpellier, France include: a new flea beetle, Aphthona chinchihi; a
new weevil, Thamnurgus euphorbiae; and the Leafy spurge gall fly,
Spurgia capitigena.
Mr. Skeen. You specify that rising levels of carbon dioxide will
stimulate wheat production by the middle of the next century. Have
similar studies been made on other agricultural crops and what are the
results to date?
Response. Studies have been conducted projecting increased
productivity with an elevation of CO2 concentrations, from
today's level of about 360 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 550
ppmv, on several agricultural crops. Measured increases include:
wheat--8-15% grain yield increases under wet conditions and 20-25%
under water-stress conditions; cotton--40% increase in seed cotton
yield under both wet and dry conditions and 60% increase in lint yield
under wet conditions; orange trees--90% increase in fruit numbers (with
no change in fruit numbers but somewhat thicker rinds); soybeans--25%
yield increase; rice--20-30% yield increase; sorghum--10% increase in
yield under well watered conditions; alfalfa--no change in biomass
production; and tomato--10% increase in fruit production.
status of current activities
Mr. Skeen. ARS in cooperation with industry has developed a process
to tenderize meat using water and an explosive charge. Please describe
this process in more detail. What is the plausibility of industry and
consumer acceptance of the process and product?
Response. The Hydrodyne process (U.S. Patents 5,273,766 and
5,328,408) presents a new way the meat industry could tenderize meat.
The process involves a high pressure, hydrodynamic wave of very short
time duration generated by underwater detonation of a small amount of
precisely calculated high explosive. A two-part explosive is used,
neither part of which are explosive until combined, and are very
stable. When combined the two parts are quite insensitive and therefore
takes a substantial force to detonate. This minimizes any safety
concerns that meat processors might have. The current Hydrodyne system
being tested is designed for batch (600-800 lb/detonation) production.
Vacuum packaged sections of meat are immersed in water contained in a
large (3 " thick) steel kettle (tank). The meat is lowered to the
bottom of the tank and a small explosive charge is submerged in the
water at a chosen distance from the meat. A heavy metal cover locks in
place on the top of the steel tank and contains the blast and resulting
water splash. An explosion (pressure shock wave) is generated in the
water sending the shock wave through the water and through the meat.
The meat and water have quite similar mechanical impedances, and are
therefore an acoustic match. The transit of the shock wave through the
meat ruptures proteins and bonds in the meat, producing instantaneous
tenderness.
The process has been presented formally to the USDA-Food Safety and
Inspection Service, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms. There have been no objections to the process regarding
hazards or health and no negative environmental effects of the
operation have been expressed. Several major meat slaughter/packing/
processing companies have shown interest in commercialization. Several
studies have been conducted in a commercial prototype unit with
different representatives from major meat industries as collaborators.
Consumer acceptance studies (e.g., surveys) have not been performed,
however, due to the nature of the process, it is unlikely this process
would meet any resistance. Since the meat products are packaged at the
time of the treatment and the meat never comes in contact with any
foreign material, there are presently no restrictions nor labeling
requirements. Sensory properties have been evaluated by trained taste
panelists. Tenderness scores improved with the process while no affects
were found for juiciness or flavor properties.
soybean-based ink
Mr. Skeen. What have been the developments with regard to the
commercial use of soybean-based ink during the past year?
Response. Interest in commercial development of ARS patented
technology on soybean-based ink continues. One company in Oklahoma has
an exclusive license limited to their region. Negotiations are underway
with a second company for an exclusive license that would cover all
areas except the region covered by the Oklahoma license. This company
has also expressed interest in a second ARS patent application
submission. The President's Executive Order requiring that vegetable
oil-based ink be used in all government printing continues to provide
an impetus for commercialization.
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with soybean-based ink, by location.
Response. At the National Center for Agricultural Utilization
Research (NCAUR), in Peoria, Illinois, we have developed resins and
vehicles for heatset and sheetfed lithographic inks and formulated
black and colored inks using 100 percent modified soy oil-based
vehicles. These formulations have the additional environmental benefit
of improved biodegradability and no volatile organic chemicals (VOC).
Scaled up testing for sheetfed ink for printing book-type paper has
been done at Rodale Press, Pennsylvania, and Rochester Institute of
Technology, Rochester, New York. Scaled up testing for heatset
technology for use with slick, high clay content paper is underway. A
cooperative project on newspaper deinking and paper recycling was
completed between NCAUR and Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo,
Michigan. Soybean-based ink for producing newborn footprints has been
developed at the request of the hospital industry out of concern for
infant safety. Soy oil-based flexographic news ink studies are
continuing.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for soybean-
based ink research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. The ARS funding for soybean-based ink research at Peoria,
Illinois, was $505,700 in fiscal year 1996 and is expected to be
$503,600 in fiscal years 1997 and 1998. This funding will support the
research activity of one scientist year.
Mr. Skeen. What non-federal funds do you receive for work related
to soyink?
Response. ARS does not receive any non-federal funds for work
related to soyink.
steep ii research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with STEEP II research, by location.
Response. ARS has two locations involved in what is now called
STEEP III research--Pullman, Washington, and Pendleton, Oregon. STEEP
III continues the emphasis of STEEP I (economical soil erosion control)
and STEEP II (economical soil erosion control plus water quality) and
increases their scope to include broader soil quality issues than in
the past. This program, more than its predecessors, emphasizes
involvement of producers in on-farm testing and demonstration of
natural resource conservation and management practices.
At Pullman, the research is being conducted on the improvement of
soil quality as a management approach to meet productivity,
environmental, and food safety and water quality goals. The research
focuses on the measurement of soil quality and the use of microbial
processes to formulate soil building management practices. Studies are
underway to improve surface residuemeasuring techniques for more
reliable assessments of conservation compliance. The location is also
participating in a regional wind erosion project to assess
contributions of farmlands to small particulate dust and loss of air
quality. Management practices are being developed for controlling wind
erosion and atmospheric dust loads.
At Pendleton, acoustical methods are being developed to measure the
stability of soil surface roughness and porosity. In cooperation with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, technologies to measure
non-random soil cover are being developed, and equations to predict
runoff and erosion are being refined for more accurate use in the
different agronomic zones of the Pacific Northwest. New tillage systems
to minimize weed seed infestations associated with residues are being
evaluated. Ripping frozen soil in fields seeded to winter wheat is
being investigated to improve erosion control on summer fallow fields.
Information from a small agricultural watershed is also being used to
test runoff models for the region so that stream flows from
agricultural lands can be better predicted.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the accomplishments of this research?
Response. ARS research has led to several important results under
STEEP II. For example, researchers have shown that weed seed left near
the soil surface is the primary factor causing downy brome infestations
in Pacific Northwest winter wheat fields. They have gone on to develop
a new mow-plow system that buries downy brome seed but maintains up to
40% residues on the surface for erosion control. Field studies have
demonstrated that alternative cropping practices, such as stubble
burning followed by no till, can reduce pesticide applications without
increasing soil erosion while at the same time increasing soil organic
matter content. Other field studies have shown the relative impacts of
wind speed, surface roughness, and surface residue conditions on
erosion and dust emissions. A newly developed practice of ripping
planted frozen winter wheat fields was effective in reducing soil
erosion on the steep slopes of the Palouse without loss of wheat yield
during the 1994-1995 winter, the worst erosion year in the area in the
last 10 years. Research has led to preliminary development of a method
to identify source areas of particulate matter dust.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for STEEP II
research for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999?
Response. The funding and staff for STEEP II and STEEP III research
will be provided for the record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999
Location -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pendleton, OR........................... $456,500 1.9 $456,500 1.9 $456,500 1.9
Pullman, WA............................. 201,700 1.0 201,700 1.0 201,700 1.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 658,200 2.9 658,200 2.9 658,200 2.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sweet potato whitefly
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you have
underway on sweet potato whitefly.
Response. The research work we have underway on sweet potato
whitefly, also known as the silverleaf whitefly, is a very extensive
and well coordinated effort. Scientists at each research location bring
together unique experience and technical expertise to combat the
whitefly under a variety of environments and circumstances. The
research work, by location, will be provided for the record.
Beltsville, Maryland--Development of naturally-occurring
attractants and whitefly control products from plant sources.
Systematics of whiteflies.
Charleston, South Carolina--Research on sweet potato whitefly
tolerant plant varieties and the biology of the sweet potato whitefly
in the southeastern United States.
College Station, Texas--Development of improved pesticide
application technology for the sweet potato whitefly.
Fargo, North Dakota--Investigation of the chemical factors for host
recognition and the nutritional requirements for mass rearing of
natural enemies.
Ithaca, New York--Introduction and evaluation of fungal biocontrol
agents.
Mississippi State, Mississippi--Evaluation and rearing of parasites
and predators for control of the sweet potato whitefly.
Montpellier, France--Exploration for and introduction of exotic
parasites, predators, and microbial biocontrol agents for the sweet
potato whitefly.
Newark, Delaware--Introduction and evaluation of exotic parasites
and predators.
Orlando, Florida--Development and evaluation of naturally-occurring
sweet potato whitefly growth regulators, and development of biological
control agents and integrated pest management systems for the
southeast.
Oxford, Mississippi--Development of biorational pesticides.
Phoenix, Arizona--Research on the identification and evaluation of
naturally-occurring predators; development of techniques for mass
production of natural enemies; evaluation of the biological
characteristics of the sweet potato whitefly; determination of the
ecology and population dynamics of the pest; and development of
integrated pest management approaches for the sweet potato whitefly in
the desert southwest cropping system.
Salinas, California--Investigations of virus-vector relationships
and effects of naturally-occurring plant virus reservoirs on the
incidence of viral diseases.
Stoneville, Mississippi--Investigations on sweet potato whitefly
rearing and reproductive potential and the biology of natural enemies
such as parasites.
Tifton, Georgia--Development of management and control technologies
for sweet potato whitefly on peanuts and other susceptible crops.
Washington, D.C.--National Arboretum. Pest management systems for
greenhouse and nursery crops.
Weslaco, Texas--Greenhouse and field evaluations of new pesticides
and application technology; investigations of insect-specific fungi for
control of sweet potato whitefly and evaluation of exotic biocontrol
agents.
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the need for this research.
Response. The sweet potato whitefly has caused significant damage
to food and fiber crops in California, Arizona, Texas, Florida,
Georgia, and Hawaii and in greenhouses across the United States. Losses
in the United States are estimated to exceed $200 million annually. The
expanding territory, the increasing threat to segments of American
agriculture--especially to cotton, vegetable, melons and cucurbits,
cole crops and ornamental crops--and the increasing incidence of
vectored diseases clearly shows the need for continuing research
efforts on this pest. Additionally, this pest and the diseases it
vectors have become international in scope and many developing
countries are looking to the United States for research leadership.
Mr. Skeen. What developments have occurred during the past year?
Response. During the past year, a new sweet potato whitefly
research plan that includes a proactive mechanism for technology
transfer has been formulated and implemented.
The new research and technology transfer plan identifies additional
research and action activities to develop effective management methods
and to increase our levels of technology transfer. Integration of
spatial analysis, geographic information systems, communications
networking, ecological modeling, and extension programs is continually
improving our efforts to provide information and management strategies
to producers. An excellent insecticide resistance management program
developed in California has been implemented, with a weekly newsletter
to the grower community that assesses the status of chemical control
efforts.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding and staff for sweet
potato whitefly research for fiscal years 1966, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix, AZ.......................... $1,555,100 5.4 $1,539,400 5.3 $1,539,400 5.3
Salinas, CA.......................... 58,800 0.2 58,300 0.2 58,300 0.2
Washington, DC....................... 176,500 1.0 174,700 1.0 174,700 1.0
Newark, DE........................... 54,800 0.2 49,700 0.2 49,700 0.2
Gainesville, FL...................... ........... .......... ........... .......... 125,000 0.3
Orlando, FL.......................... 359,200 1.4 311,900 1.0 611,900 2.0
Athens, GA........................... 75,300 0.3 ........... .......... ........... ..........
Tifton, GA........................... 74,600 0.2 73,800 0.2 73,800 0.2
Beltsville, MD....................... 255,100 1.2 173,200 0.8 173,200 0.8
Miss. State, MS...................... 111,300 0.4 217,800 1.1 217,800 1.1
Oxford, MS........................... ........... .......... 64,800 0.3 64,800 0.3
Stoneville, MS....................... 137,000 0.6 135,700 0.6 135,700 0.6
Ithaca, NY........................... 74,300 0.2 65,800 0.2 60,800 0.2
Fargo, ND............................ 620,900 2.1 691,700 2.1 691,700 2.1
Charleston, SC....................... 412,200 1.0 447,100 1.4 447,100 1.4
Coll. Stat., TX...................... 221,900 0.9 219,700 0.9 219,700 0.9
Weslaco, TX.......................... 832,500 2.0 874,000 2.5 874,000 2.5
Montpellier, France.................. 180,700 0.8 178,900 0.8 178,900 0.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 5,200,200 17.9 5,276,500 18.6 5,696,500 19.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
taxol research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the work you are doing
in connection with taxol research, by location.
Response. A cell culture technology developed and patented by ARS
researchers at Ithaca, New York, was transferred to Phyton Catalytic,
Inc. in 1991. The ARS researchers worked with the company via a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement ending in 1993. As part
of the patent licensing agreement, ARS has continued to keep Phyton
Catalytic, Inc. apprised of improvements in the plant cell culture
process. ARS is currently funding its research in this area with a
reimbursable agreement from Washington State University. In fiscal year
1997, ARS received about $15,000 from Washington State. ARS provided
$8,910 of these funds to Cornell University through a Specific
Cooperative Agreement to demonstrate rapid production of economically
significant quantities of taxol via ARS's plant cell cultures grown in
Cornell's unique facility. ARS base funding was not used during fiscal
year 1996 and 1997. Both taxol-producing and nonproducing cell lines
have been generated from six Taxus species as a result of ARS-conducted
research; five of these cell lines will be evaluated for economic
potential by Phyton Catalytic, Inc. via a material transfer agreement
to be signed in April 1997. Discussions have been held between Phyton
Catalytic, Inc. and the Food and Drug Administration to establish the
framework for approving plant cell-culture derived taxol for treatment
of ovarian and other types of cancer.
Mr. Skeen. What is the funding and staff for taxol research for
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. There was no base funding for taxol research during
fiscal years 1996 or 1997 and none is planned for fiscal year 1998.
Research efforts at the Ithaca location in fiscal year 1997 are being
funded by a $15,000 reimbursable agreement from Washington State
University.
technology transfer
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the ARS activities and cooperative
efforts involved in transferring technology to industry and other users
of ARS research.
Response. ARS has a proactive and targeted marketing and outreach
program designed to inform private sector customers of ARS commercial
opportunities. These efforts include:
Targeting and attending trade shows and meetings to reach a broader
customer base and offer personal assistance on ARS technology
opportunities and programs.
Coordinating with conference organizers to make ARS technology
transfer personnel and scientists available to deliver key
presentations to broaden awareness of the ARS research program.
Developing formal partnerships with state economic development and
agriculture entities in efforts to coordinate and enhance the transfer
of ARS technology to the private sector. Approximately 25 states are
developing partnerships with ARS to assist the agency in reaching a
broader industrial base, while allowing industries in respective states
to stay abreast of the latest technology advancements for enhanced
global and economic competitiveness.
Developing an entry outlining ARS technology transfer programs and
services for the USDA Resource Guide for Value-Added Agriculture and
Forest Products, scheduled for publication in May 1997.
Disseminating concise technology summaries of patented technologies
containing pertinent technical and business information.
Actively assist sister USDA agencies and other federal agencies in
response to customer needs.
Mr. Skeen. Last year ARS made the statement that its technology
transfer program had created new businesses and jobs. Can you give us
some examples? Are you able to quantify either?
Response. In the majority of cases, ARS technologies are licensed
to established businesses which have taken these developments and
developed new product lines to compliment existing ones. This has
enabled these companies to remain strong and retain employment through
diversification. Because ARS does not get involved in proprietary
matters of its licensees, it is difficult to place an exact number on
the total employment impact derived from the transfer of ARS
technology.
For example, a fat replacer made from soluble oat fiber was
licensed to ConAgra Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska. This technology enabled
ConAgra and the A.E. Staley Co. to form the joint venture, Mountain
Lake Manufacturing, and build a new plant in Mountain Lake, Minnesota
to manufacture the fat replacer. Eight people are employed at the
Minnesota plant and the company has plans to increase employment.
However, the majority of the jobs created by this technology are with
end-user companies, which are making a variety of products using the
fat replacer manufactured by Mountain Lakes. Information on these end-
user companies is confidential business information of the licensee.
ARS technology has also led to the creation of new businesses, with
some starting to bear economic fruit. EMBREX Inc. of Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina began as a two-person operation in 1985. An ARS
patented method to immunize poultry by injecting vaccines into the egg
was exclusively licensed in 1987 to EMBREX. The ARS technology allowed
EMBREX to develop and patent the INOVOJECTTM. The
INOVOJECTTM can inoculate 20 to 50 thousand hatchery eggs
per hour. Today this method protects 65 percent of the U.S. poultry
market and 70 percent of the Canadian producers. EMBREX also employs
more than 100 people, and opened an international office in London
where it has entered the European and African markets. The company is
also working on similar arrangements with the Japanese to enter the
Asian market and continues to be a customer of additional ARS
technologies.
ARS technology incorporation beneficial organisms to control the
presence of pathogens such as Salmonella was licensed to Milk
Specialties Inc. of Dundee, Illinois. This development enabled Milk
Specialties to create a new BioSciences Division, which opened a
manufacturing facility in early 1996 in Madison, Wisconsin to
manufacture products based on ARS technology. The new BioSciences
Division currently employs 14 people.
Other examples of businesses created by ARS technology with
products on the horizon include:
Phyton Catalytic Inc. of Ithaca, New York, which is scaling up an
ARS-patented method to produce the anti-cancer drug taxol in tissue
culture.
Wisconsin Global Technologies of Black River Falls, Wisconsin,
which is beginning to manufacture textile products using an ARS-
patented thermoadaptable finish.
Pre-Peeled Fruit Inc. of Groveland, Florida, which is using ARS
patented technology to process citrus products for the fresh-cut fruit
market.
Yulex Inc. of Philadelphia, PA which is scaling up an ARS-patented
process to manufacture hypoallergenic latex products from the guayule
plant for the health care industry.
tobacco research
Mr. Skeen. Are there any ongoing research projects related to
tobacco?
Response. There are no ongoing ARS research projects related to
tobacco. All ARS tobacco production and health-related research
projects were terminated at the end of fiscal year 1994.
tropical/subtropical research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe for the Committee the tropical and
subtropical research being carried on under Section 406 of the
Agricultural Trade and Development Assistance Act.
Response. ARS conducts tropical and subtropical research in Hawaii
and Puerto Rico under Section 406 of the Agricultural Trade and
Development Assistance Act. In Hawaii, our research programs are
directed to postharvest quarantine treatments to enhance the export of
tropical fruit crops grown, and production and marketing of certain
horticultural and forage crops. In Puerto Rico, emphasis is placed on
evaluation of new crop varieties and species thought to have economic
potential for development in the Caribbean Basin. These include fruit
crops, vegetables, cereal crops, tannier and other root crops. We also
have educational programs in Puerto Rico to train individuals to
produce and market certain crops. Training in entomology and plant
pathology is also provided to help remove quarantine restrictions on
commodities. These trained specialists then return to their farming
communities and production areas to help train others in tropical/
subtropical agriculture.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the budget for this research for
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Location -----------------------------------------------
1996 Funds 1997 Funds 1998 Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilo, HI........................................................ $165,000 $163,700 $163,700
Mayaguez, PR.................................................... 673,100 667,700 509,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 838,100 831,400 672,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. What is the total USDA budget for tropical/subtropical
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, by location?
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Agency --------------------------------------
1996 funds 1997 funds 1998 funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS.............................. $838,100 $831,400 $672,700
CSREES........................... 14,919,000 14,830,000 10,543,000
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 15,757,100 15,661,400 11,215,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
urban pest control
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the work you have underway on urban pest
control research.
Response. Urban pest control research emphasizes reduced-risk
management of cockroaches, fire ants, pest ants, and fleas to safeguard
human health and the quality of our food for the next century. General
goals are to eliminate existing infestations, mitigate damage to indoor
environmental quality caused by pests (allergens and biocontamination),
and proactively prevent future infestations. Special research teams
address the development of insecticide-free or reduced-risk, least-
toxic technologies. Research strategies include truly integrated pest
management using novel environmentally-dynamic baits, biological
control agents, structural modications promoting management of moisture
and airflow (insect-resistant construction), and non-toxic repellents
to force pests from habitats and/or to prevent infestations. These
tools are being combined, under a sophisticated implementation concept
called ``Precision Targeting,'' into a comprehensive management plan to
reduce pesticide use by 50 percent before the turn of the century.
Multiple-species ant bait has been developed for management of urban
ants. A patent, ``An Ant Bait Attractive to Multiple Species of Ants,''
invented by ARS scientists has been submitted. This water soluble bait
is attractive to various types of ants afflicting urban environments.
It is anticipated that commercial development of this bait will provide
the public with better technology for the most common pest ant species.
All ARS research on urban pest control is conducted at Gainesville,
Florida. Much of this research is carried out in cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, the private
sector, and universities. No additional funds were provided last year
to ARS for urban pest control research. The last increase of $100,000
was provided in 1992.
Mr. Skeen. By location, what is the funding for urban pest control
research for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
Response. All ARS urban pest research is conducted at the Imported
Fire Ant and Household Insects Research Unit; Center for Medical,
Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology; Gainesville, Florida.
In fiscal year 1996, funding was $816,900. Funds for fiscal year
1996 and 1997 include $120,288 for cooperative research on Formosan
termites at the University of Hawaii. In fiscal year 1997 funding if
$808,700, and is estimated to be $664,600 in fiscal year 1998.
utilization centers
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please describe each of the major
utilization research centers.
Response. Authorization for the four ARS utilization centers was a
small part of the omnibus 1938 legislation--the Agricultural Adjustment
act of 1938. In 1939, Congress appropriated $4 million to build and
equip the laboratories and by the end of 1940 or early 1941, the
buildings had been completed and equipped, the first scientist
employed, and research begun. Few people fully appreciate the magnitude
of what has been accomplished by these Centers since then. By all
estimates, the research has paid for itself many times over. A
description of current activities at each of the centers follows.
WRRC--The Western Regional Research Center (WRRC) in Albany,
California, has 59 scientists, a total staff of 161, and a fiscal 1997
budget allocation of $15.4 million. WRRC conducts mission-oriented
research to enhance the healthfulness of foods; to develop new and
novel food and industrial products from renewable resources; and to
protect and enhance the quality of the environment. The results of
research efforts are implemented through the effective transfer of new
technologies to clients and users. Research objectives include:
enhancing the quality and healthfulness of foods by creating new crop
plants and food products which promote health, and by developing
systems and methods to help ensure the safety of the food supply;
developing new and novel food and industrial products from cereals,
fruits, and vegetables; using biotechnology to improve and tailor crops
and bioengineering to create new products from agriculture and
processing coproducts; and developing ecologically-sound methods for
pest control.
SRRC--The Southern Regional Research Center (SRRC), New Orleans,
Louisiana, has 82 scientists, a total staff of 239, with a 1997 funding
allocation of $18.8 million. SRRC conducts research related primarily
to postharvest processing, products enhancement, safety and use of
agricultural commodities produced in the Southern United States,
utilizing multidisciplinary teams of scientists. Research objectives
include achieving maximum use of agricultural products for domestic
markets and export; devolving new uses and processes for farm products,
and the means of promoting optimum human health and well-being through
improved nutrition; and promoting products safety and quality. Major
efforts focus on improving the quality of cotton products and the
safety and health of cotton workers and consumers; development of new
process to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of food-processing
systems and reduction of processing costs; enhancement in the quality
and nutritional value of such food products as rice and peanuts;
improved production and processing efficiency of sugar; studies
prevention of contamination of agricultural products by fungal toxins
to promote product safety and health, flavor quality in fish, peanuts,
fruits, and vegetables; the application of recent advancements in
biotechnology to promote new uses and added value of agricultural
commodities, including medicinal uses of phytoestrogens.
NCAUR--The National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research
(NCAUR), Peoria, Illinois, has 93 scientists, a total staff of 259, and
a fiscal 1997 allocation of $21.9 million. NCAUR creates new uses of
agricultural commodities for industrial and food products, develops new
technology to improve environmental quality and provides technical
support to Federal regulatory and action agencies. NCAUR, the largest
of the four utilization centers, has a diverse research program in
which microorganisms and/or their enzymes are identified and used to
transform raw agricultural materials (starch, proteins, oils) to
commercially valuable products such as food additives, fuels, insect
and weed controls, cosmetics, and industrial lubricants; processing
technologies like extrusion, jet cooking, high pressure reactions and
supercritical extraction are used to make new value-added products such
as biodegradable plastics, edible films, printing inks, novel flavors
and pigments; and biotechnology tools are used to produce new products
for many industrial uses and improved food safety and biocontrol agents
and delivery systems are devised to reduce pesticide use and enhance
environmental quality.
ERRC--The Eastern Regional Research Center (ERRC), Wyndmoor,
Pennsylvania, has 80 scientists, a total staff of 211, and a fiscal
1997 allocation of $19.7 million. ERRC programs support fundamental,
developmental and applied research on agricultural commodities
including meat, milk, hides, wool, fats, oils, and fruits and
vegetables. New knowledge and technology that will ensure an abundance
of high quality agricultural commodities and products at reasonable
prices to meet the increasing needs and to provide a continued
improvement in the standard of living of all Americans are obtained
through the following research objectives: improve and reduce pre- and
postharvest losses; develop new and improved food and industrial
products and processing technologies; insure microbial and chemical
food safety via molecular biology studies, rapid detection-sensing
methods, intervention technologies and risk assessment; upgrade
nutritional value; open new and expand existing domestic and foreign
markets; reduce marketing costs; utilize byproducts, particularly
potential pollutants, minimize energy consumption; decrease costs for
production of fuel-grade alcohol from agricultural feedstocks; improve
economy in respect to consumer interests; and transfer technology.
Mr. Skeen. What is the funding level of each of these centers in
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998?
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Location -----------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, CA--WRRC.............. $15,251,200 $15,401,900 $14,021,400
New Orleans, LA--SRRC......... 18,516,700 18.831,000 18,471,000
Peoria, IL--NCAUR............. 22,059,600 21,887,000 20,779,400
Wyndmoor, PA--ERRC............ 18,233,800 19,707,300 19,984,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
staffing of research facilities
Mr. Skeen. Would you please provide for the record a table
indicating, by location, your total laboratory capacity in terms of the
number of scientists, indicating the total number of scientists
assigned to that facility and the percent staffed?
[The information follows:]
[Pages 209 - 212--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
new research facilities
Mr. Skeen. Please describe any laboratory space you have acquired
during the past 12 months and indicate the reason why the facilities
were acquired.
Response. ARS has not acquired any laboratory space during the past
12 months.
Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the replacement of the Orlando,
Fla. research facility?
Response. For the past several year, ARS has been pursuing the
relocation of the ARS U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory located in
Orlando, Florida. Orlando's increasing population has surrounded the
laboratory with commercial buildings and a city cultural park, leaving
the laboratory unable to provide the full range of research activities.
The city of Orlando has supported the laboratory's relocation. After
evaluations of several sites in Florida, a site adjacent to the
University of Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center at Ft.
Pierce was selected. Total costs for design and construction are
estimated at $34,770,000.
Funding in the amount of $470,000 for planning has been approved
from the $1,270,000 fiscal year 1993 line item for ARS facilities--
France, Parlier, and Orlando. In FY 1994, $2,900,000 was appropriated
for design from the FY 1994 Building and Facilities account. An
additional $2,900,000 in FY 1995, $1,500,000 in FY 1996, and
$27,000,000 in FY 1997 was appropriated for construction. An architect-
engineering design contract was warded in the fourth quarter of FY
1994, and design was completed in the first quarter of FY 1997. A
construction award is scheduled for the third quarter of FY 1997.
On December 13, 1993, ARS signed a sublease agreement with the
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
(IFAS), for two parcels of University-owned land totaling 190 acres in
Ft. Pierce, Florida. One parcel, 18 acres located adjacent to the IFAS
Research Center, will be the site of the new Horticultural Research
Laboratory. The 172-acre farm site which will be used for field plots,
is approximately one mile from the first site. The Board of Regents and
the Trustees executed the sublease on April 11, 1994. On January 29,
1997, ARS recorded a lease with the St. Lucia County School Board for
142.12 acres for wetland mitigation purposes.
ars-owned aircraft
Mr. Skeen. Please provide for the record a listing of aircraft
owned by the Agricultural Research Service, including where the
aircraft are located, the types of aircraft, and how the aircraft were
acquired. Also indicate, for the record, the number of flying hours for
each of these aircraft during fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
Response. The Agricultural Research Service owns and operates seven
aircraft located at College Station and Weslaco, Texas. The requested
information will be provided for the record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flying Flying
Location Type Method of acquisition hours FY hours FY
1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
College Station, TX................... Cessna T188C............ Purchase................ 162 154
Cessna P206B \1\........ Excess.................. 4 10
Cessna U206B............ Excess.................. 10 22
Hiller 12E.............. Excess.................. 100 2
Weslaco, TX........................... Cessna TU206G........... Excess.................. 61 72
Cessna 182J \2\......... Excess.................. 0 0
Aero Commander 680...... Excess.................. 102 115
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for all................... ........................ ........................ 439 375
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In FY 1996, ARS obtained a waiver from GSA to trade this aircraft in for a new Air Tractor 402-B. However,
the new aircraft was accepted in October 1996 (FY 1997).
\2\ This aircraft was taken out of service in FY 1995 and reported ``excess''. In June 1996, the aircraft was
transferred to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Mr. Skeen. Whate were the fiscal year 1996 maintenance costs for
each of the ARS-owned aircraft?
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance
Location Type costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
College Station, TX................ Cessna T188C \1\...... $26,800
Cessna P206B.......... 1,000
Cessna U206B.......... 1,470
Hiller 12E............ 210
Weslaco, TX........................ Cessna TU206G......... 9,324
Cessna 182J........... 0
Aero Commander 680.... 3,875
------------------------------------
Total for all................ ...................... 42,679
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The maintenance work included a new engine, propeller blade,
alternator, starter, and mixture control cable.
facility requirements
Mr. Skeen. Would you please list for the record all of your planned
modernization or construction projects, showing both the facility and
the estimated needs?
Response. The following is a list of planned modernization and
construction projects for ARS to date:
Balance estimated needs
Modernization:
Beltsville, Maryland................................ $102,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana.............................. 22,650,000
Peoria, Illinois.................................... 70,200,000
Greenport, New York................................. 66,000,000
Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania.............................. 25,700,000
Albany, California.................................. 15,000,000
Gainesville, Florida................................ 6,200,000
National Animal Disease Center, Iowa................ 139,000,000
Sidney, Montana..................................... 7,900,000
Weslaco, Texas...................................... 10,708,000
Manhattan, Kansas................................... 9,050,000
East Lansing, Michigan.............................. 18,100,000
National Agricultural Library, Maryland............. 18,000,000
El Reno, Oklahoma................................... 7,500,000
Construction:
Parlier, California................................. 23,400,000
Montpellier, France................................. 3,400,000
Athens, Georgia..................................... 5,100,000
Charleston, South Carolina.......................... 14,030,000
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida............................. 4,000,000
Leetown, West Virginia.............................. 6,000,000
Davis, California................................... 19,000,000
Hilo, Hawaii........................................ 2,090,000
Oahu, Hawaii........................................ 12,890,000
The ``Balance Estimated Costs'' amount represents remaining
modernization and construction project funding requirements that were
either originally identified via facility condition studies, the
development of Program of Requirement documents, or design drawings.
Funding to date for these projects was either congressionally funded
through the Agency's Building and Facilities account, or through the
Agency's Annual Repair and Maintenance budget line item appropriation.
montpellier, france
Mr. Skeen. Would you please describe for the Committee the status
of the relocation to Montpellier, France?
Response. ARS research operations have been relocated from Behoust
and Rome to leased space in the Science Park at Montpellier, France,
until a new ARS facility can be built on a nearby site in Montpellier.
The design of the new European Biological Control Laboratory was
completed in the fourth quarter of FY 1995. The total FY 1998
construction funding need for Phase 1 is $3,400,000.
behoust, france
Mr. Skeen. Has the land at Behoust been sold?
Response. On February 8, 1996, ARS formally accepted an offer to
sell the land and facilities at Behoust. The American Embassy in Paris
finalized the sales transaction on June 17, 1996.
fresno, california
Mr. Skeen. Would you also describe for the Committee the status of
the Fresno relocation?
Response. The U.S. Horticultural Crop and Water Management Research
Laboratory requires a new permanent facility of approximately 78,000
gross square feet of research laboratory, office, headhouse/greenhouse,
farm center, storage, and shop space. Site development, additional
land, and specialized equipment are required. Total cost is
$29,000,000. In FY 1993, $300,000 was appropriated for pre-design as
part of a $1,270,000 appropriation for France, Orlando, and Parlier. In
FY 1994, an additional $2,630,000 was appropriated for planning and
design. In FY 1995, $2,630,000 was appropriated for construction. An
additional $23,400,000 is requested in FY 1998 to complete
construction.
A pre-design contract was awarded in the first quarter of FY 1995.
The design will be completed in the third quarter of FY 1997. On June
26, 1992, ARS completed the acquisition of a 105-acre parcel of land in
Parlier, California, for the Horticultural Crop and Water Management
Research Laboratory. The purchase price for the site was $1,000,000. On
January 5, 1996, ARS completed the acquisition of an additional 22
acres of land for $265,000 adjacent to the original 105-acre parcel.
This additional piece of property is being developed as a farm work
site to support research of the ARS, Plant Germplasm Introduction and
Testing Research, Pullman, Washington.
weslaco, texas
Mr. Skeen. Would you describe for us the status of the replacement
of the Weslaco, Texas, research facility?
Response. In FY 1994, $1,400,000 was appropriated for planning,
design, and construction; in FY 1995, $3,009,000 for construction; in
FY 1996, $1,000,000 for construction; and in FY 1996, $383,000 was
redirected from residual construction funds of the Honey Bee Research
Laboratory; and in FY 1997, $4,000,000 for construction for the
modernization of the Subtropical Agricultural Research Laboratory in
Weslaco, Texas. The design and construction will be phased over 6
years--FY 1995 through FY 2000. A design contract for the first two
construction phases was awarded in the first quarter of FY 1995.
Demolition of structures for site preparation has been completed.
Construction of Phase 2 (utility and site upgrade) awarded in the
fourth quarter of FY 1996, and will be complete in the fourth quarter
of FY 1997. Award of a construction contract for renovation of two
existing greenhouses and two new greenhouses is pending. Construction
will be complete for these facilities in the first quarter of FY 1998.
Design is ongoing for Phase 3 (new 24,000 gross square feet (GSF)
laboratory/office) and will be complete in the second quarter of FY
1997.
The scope of work for the modernization will include new
construction--40,000 GSF, major/minor renovation--51,000 GSF,
demolition--27,000 GSF, and sitework. The types of facilities will
include research office/laboratories, headhouse/greenhouses, chemical
storage, pesticide storage, and shops. The total estimated cost will be
$18,600,000 for construction and $1,900,000 for design.
backlog of facility replacement
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please provide a list of all ARS
facilities and the known backlog of replacement or major repairs.
[The information follows:]
The Repair and Maintenance Program is specifically intended to
improve ARS facilities within six guidelines: protection of life,
protection of property, implementation of mandated regulations,
compliance with building codes, more effective space utilization, and
implementation of energy conservation. The definition of repair as
customarily applied to ARS facilities and buildings is the restoration
and repair of components of an existing facility to a condition
substantially equivalent to its original state and efficiency with the
repair work complying with the requirements contained in the current
applicable codes and standards. Typical examples of this type of work
are: HVAC/Electrical/plumbing system replacement due to age; Roof
replacement/building envelope repair/maintenance; Site utility system
replacement; Fire protection installation/replacement; Fume hood
replacement/modification to correct air flow deficiency; and Road
paving/site pedestrian and vehicular circulation/correct site drain.
[Pages 216 - 219--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
repair and maintenance
Mr. Skeen. What is your planned budget for repair and maintenance
of facilities in fiscal years 1997 and 1998?
Response. The fiscal year 1998 repair and maintenance budget is
projected to be the same as appropriations in the fiscal year 1997,
which is $18,262,000. This amount includes $14,246,000 in Agency funds,
$900,000 for the National Agricultural Library, $740,000 for the
National Arboretum, and $2,376,000 in BARC Renaissance '93 funds.
Mr. Skeen. How were these funds used in fiscal year 1996?
Response. Some of the types of repair and maintenance projects
funded in fiscal year 1996 include: bridge repairs, roof repair, HVAC
repair, plumbing repairs, upgrade to sewage lines, electrical repairs,
fencing replacement, painting, pavement repair, asbestos and lead
abatement, accessibility projects, and replacement of fire alarm
systems.
Mr. Skeen. What was the largest single expenditure?
Response. The largest single expenditure of repair and maintenance
funds in 1996 covered the cost of the Eastern Regional Research Center
Modernization, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Phase 2 construction. This
expenditure totaled $4,567,625.
contingency fund
Mr. Skeen. Please describe the Contingency Fund that was
established by Congress in 1962 and explain how these funds are used.
Response. The Contingency Research Fund was established by Congress
in fiscal year 1962 to provide a ready source of funds to meet
unforeseen and immediate research needs. Releases are generally made in
situations where an emergency funding need exists, for example, an
unexpected scientific ``breakthrough,'' or outbreaks of diseases or
pest problems where it appears inadvisable to wait for consideration of
additional funding through the regular budget process. The agency
policy is to make no commitment beyond the current fiscal year when
allocating these funds.
Mr. Skeen. How much is included in the fiscal year 1997 request and
is that amount adequate?
Response. The fiscal year 1997 request of $928,523 for contingency
funds appears to be adequate based on prior year experience. This
amount is also requested for fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. Please provide the details of any specific use of the
Contingency Fund in fiscal year 1996 and any use, so far, in 1997.
[The information follows:]
1996 releases
Cooperative Agreement with Univ. of Arizona for
cyclospora organism research, Beltsville, Maryland.. $113,907
Karnal Bunt Disease research, Frederick, Maryland....... 370,893
Research for TCK smut on wheat.......................... 266,756
Frederick, Maryland--187,164
Raleigh, North Carolina--79,592
Irradiation research on cyclospora organism, Wyndmoor,
Pennsylvania........................................ 25,000
Drydock, maintenance, and navigational system upgrade
for marine vessel M.S. Shahan, Greenport, L.I., New
York................................................ 51,967
Removal and replacement of fence damaged by lightning-
induced grass fires, Miles City, Montana............ 30,000
Repair high-wind damage to trees, roofs, doors, and HVAC
systems, Mandan, North Dakota....................... 20,000
Repair roofs, walls, replace walk-in coolers, fencing,
wiring and gates due to hurricane damage, Mayaguez,
Puerto Rico......................................... 50,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Contingency Research Fund.................. 928,523
Use in fiscal year 1997 includes $350,000 to conduct an alternative
methodology pilot study and $50,000 for emergency research on control
of varroa mites at Beltsville, Maryland; $75,000 for streptococcal
infections in farm-raised fish at Auburn, Alabama; and $50,000 for
emergency research using formic acid for control of varroa mites at
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
library fees
Mr. Skeen. Last year, ARS indicated it was to have in place by the
end of fiscal year 1996 a new policy for charging users for its
services at the National Agricultural Library. What is the status of
that effort?
Response. User fees for services of the National Agricultural
Library (NAL) are collected by the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS). Negotiations with NTIS concerning the new policy have
been completed. Public notice will be issued by July 1, 1997 and the
new fee structure will be implemented during FY 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Do you expect to receive revenues from this proposal?
Response. The National Agricultural Library expects to receive
revenues that will offset the direct costs of providing document
delivery services to users who pay fees.
Mr. Skeen. For the record please update and provide a table similar
to the one that appears on page 158 of last year's hearing record.
[The information follows:]
NAL DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE ACTIVITY AND COST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests received.................................. 237,190 227,738 205,655 195,891 193,619 190,000
Requests filled.................................... 189,101 182,763 163,830 156,618 154,314 152,000
Amount spent (millions)............................ $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3
Amount recovered (millions) \1\.................... $.033 $.032 $.058 $.012 $.010 $.010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For 1995, 1996 and 1997 the amount recovered decreases because of increased fees charged to NAL by the
billing agency that processes invoices and payments.
national agriculture library object class table
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please provide an object class table for
fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998 for the Library.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
------------------------------------
Object classification 1998
1996 1997 budget
actual appropriation estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Compensation:
11Permanent positions $7,782 $8,162 $8,192
11Positions other than 258 270 271
permanent
11Other personnel 88 92 92
compensation
--------------------------------------
Total, Personnel 8,128 8,524 8,555
Compensation
12Personnel benefits: 1,619 1,699 1,706
civilian retirement
13Former employees 18 ............. .........
--------------------------------------
Total, Object Classes 9,765 10,223 10,261
11-13
======================================
Other Obligations:
21Travel and transportation 132 108 108
of persons
22Transportation of things 91 75 75
23Comm., util, other rents 739 605 605
24Printing and reproduction 110 90 90
25Other services 2,163 1,768 1,805
25Purchases of goods and 62 51 51
services
25Operations & maintenance of 1,928 1,577 1,577
facil
25Research & development 1,310 1,072 1,072
contracts
25Operations & maintenance of 150 132 122
equip
25Subsistence & support of 6 5 5
persons
26Supplies & materials 1,259 1,030 1,030
31Equipment 2,481 2,029 2,029
41Grants, subsidies and 690 564 564
contributions
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, All Other 11,121 9,096 9,133
======================================
Total 20,886 19,319 19,394
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leflar school of law agricultural library
Mr. Skeen. For the past several years, the Congress has provided
funds for the Leflar School of Law Agricultural Library. Has USDA ever
audited the expenditures of their funds to assure they are being spent
properly?
Response. USDA has never audited the expenditures of the funds
Congress provides for the Leflar School of Law Agricultural Library.
USDA does, however, monitor closely the use of those funds. Leflar
files the required financial status reports every year, and USDA staff
review those reports and, as needed, requests additional information.
An official file on this project is maintained by USDA.
Mr. Skeen. Does the National Agricultural Library receive products
from the Leflar Law Library free of charge?
Response. Yes. The National Agricultural Library receives products
from the Leflar Law Library of charge.
Mr. Skeen. Can you tell us what the demand has been for products
from the Leflar Law Library?
Response. The National Agricultural Library is not able to
determine the demand for products from the Leflar Law Library. The
Library of Leflar's products, services, and use is described in the
document by the National Center for Agricultural Law Research and
Information: Congressional Report 1996: A Summary of the Activities and
Accomplishments of the National Center for Agricultural Law Research
and Information (NCALRI) for March 1, 1988 to March 1, 1996 and Year In
Review March 1, 1995 through March 1, 1996.
Potential users may locate Leflar publications by using INFOLINKS,
the University of Arkansas online library catalog, NAL's AGRICOLA
database and ISIS online catalog, and catalogs of other libraries.
Users may obtain these publications through interlibrary loan
departments at the NAL, the University of Arkansas Mullins Library, and
other libraries. Instructions for ordering many of the Leflar
publications can be found on the Leflar home page.
centers
Mr. Skeen. How many different information centers have been
established at the Library?
Response. There are currently nine information centers covering the
following subject areas: Agricultural Trade and Marketing; Alternative
Farming Systems; Animal Welfare; Biotechnology; Food and Nutrition;
Plant Genome; Rural Information; Technology Transfer; and Water
Quality. In FY 1997, Aquaculture became a program area within the
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center.
Mr. Skeen. Please update the tables that appears on pages 160 and
162 of last year's hearing record.
Response. I will provide for the record updated tables of the
Library's 1996 and 1997 (estimated) resources in support of the
specialized subject areas handled by the information centers. Please
note that after last year's tables were submitted, revisions were made
in the standard practices used to make those calculations. Due to these
changes, some of the numbers in this year's tables differ from the
numbers that would be expected based on last year's tables.
[Pages 223 - 224--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. Are you able to track the usage to each center, and if
so, describe the actual use for each?
Response. We do track the usage made of the NAL information
centers, and I will provide a table which illustrates some of the ways
the centers provide traditional information services. A great deal of
the usage of these centers is not reflected in these statistical
measures, since the customers are increasingly involved in creating and
providing electronic access to information in their subject area via
the Internet. Statistics on Internet usage are generally not counted as
``reference requests,'' and mechanisms to track Internet usage are not
in place in all cases. Available data indicate that NAL information on
World Wide Web sites was accessed more than 3.6 million times in fiscal
year 1996.
TRADITIONAL USAGE INDICATORS OF THE INFORMATION CENTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print
Information centers Reference publications
requests distributed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Trade and Marketing............. 1,719 12,098
Alternative Farming Systems.................. 1,466 52,017
Animal Welfare............................... 2,075 36,760
Aquaculture.................................. 2,611 11,446
Biotechnology................................ 584 4,509
Food and Nutrition........................... 8,236 22,661
Plant Genome................................. 149 21,093
Rural Information............................ 1,786 12,221
Technology Transfer.......................... 341 2,332
Water Quality................................ 269 748
--------------------------
Total.................................... 19,236 175,885
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Performance and Results Act
implementation of the government performance and results act (gpra)
(1) GPRA known as the Results Act, requires each executive agency
to issue, no later than September 30, 1997, a strategic plan covering
at least five years. In addition to a mission statement grounded in
legislative requirements, the plans are to contain general goals and
objectives that are expected to be outcome or results oriented (such as
to improve literacy) as opposed to output or activity oriented (such as
to increase the number of education grants issued).
Mr. Skeen. What progress is the agency making in developing its
strategic plan, including defining its mission and establishing
appropriate goals?
Response. The ARS Strategic Plan was developed over the last 18
months by an Agency-wide Strategic Planning Team (SPT). The plan has
received extensive review by the Agency's senior managers and it
underwent a period of public comment last summer. The current draft was
completed on February 10, 1997 and submitted to the Under Secretary for
Research, Education and Economics. We plan at least one more round to
respond to comments from Department officials and others. We fully
expect that the plan will be ready to take effect on October 1, 1997
and guide the work of the Agency in FYs 1998-2002.
Mr. Skeen. Has the agency identified conflicting goals for any of
its program efforts? If so, what are the performance consequences of
these conflicting goals and what actions--including seeking legislative
changes--is the agency taking to address these conflicts?
Response. ARS did not identify any conflicts in its authorizing
legislation.
(2) Strategic plans must be based on realistic assessments of the
resources that will be available to the agency to accomplish its goals.
As you are developing your strategic plan.
Mr. Skeen. a. How are you taking into account projected resources
that likely will be available--especially as we move to a balanced
budget? b. What assumptions are you making? c. How are you ensuring
that your goals are realistic in light of expected resources?
Response. The strategic plan was developed assuming the budget
projections contained in the President's FY97 and, more recently, FY98
proposed budget. This implies an essentially flat budget for several
years. Given this constrained budget environment, the mission area and
its agencies are seeking ways to do more with the same or less funding.
We are working to realize these gains through administrative
efficiencies and grater coordination among the REE agencies and with
our partners in the research community.
(3) For Congress, the heart of the Results Act is the statutory
link between agency plans, budget requests, and the reporting of
results. Starting with fiscal year 1999, agencies are to develop annual
performance plans that define performance goals and the measures that
will be used to assess progress over the coming year. These annual
goals are to measure agency progress toward meeting strategic goals and
are to be based on the program activities as set forth in the
President's budget.
Mr. Skeen. What progress have you made in establishing clear and
direct linkages between the general goals in your strategic plan and
the goals to be contained in your annual performance plans? OMB
expressed concern last year that most agencies had not made sufficient
progress in this critical area.
Response. Following OMB guidance, ARS has taken advantage of the
long lead time on GPRA to develop its strategic plan, and to explore
new ways to organize and manage its research program to meet the
requirements of the new statute. ARS developed a combination of output
and outcome performance measures that are reflected in the
``Agricultural Research Service FY 1998--Explanatory Notes''. Later
this spring the Agency will begin developing its FY 1999 budget which
will be accompanied by an GPRA driven Annual Performance Plan directly
linking the ARS strategic plan with the proposed budget submission.
Mr. Skeen. More specifically, how are you progressing in linking
your strategic and annual performance goals to the program activity
structure contained in the President's budget? Do you anticipate the
need to change or modify the activity structure to be consistent with
the agency's goals?
Response. ARS is currently restructuring its research activities
(approximately 1,100 research projects) by aggregating them into 25 new
National Programs. These National Programs will strengthen and better
focus the Agency's research programs on finding solutions to high
priority National agricultural needs. The Agency anticipates modifying
the budget activities to reflect the new ARS strategic plan.
Mr. Skeen. Overall, what progress has your agency made--and what
challenges is it experiencing--defining results-oriented performance
measures that will allow the agency and others to determine the extent
to which goals are being met?
Response. The nature of scientific research does not easily lend
itself to setting relatively short-term result-oriented performance
goals. ARS is a mission driven agency dedicated to solving the problems
that confront American agriculture. To accomplish its mission ARS must
maintain its scientific core capacity to be able to mobilize the
knowledge generated by basic, applied and developmental research to
solve existing and emerging problems. It is not always possible to
anticipate what needs will emerge, and by its very nature, the ultimate
outcomes of research are unknowable. Having made these points; the
agency has developed a strategic plan which has a hierarchy of outcome
oriented goals, general goals, and specific goals, is reorganizing its
National Program Staff, and is aggregating its approximately 1,100
research projects into 25 new National Programs. When these changes are
fully implemented, ARS will be able to measure and report its progress
towards meeting the goals established in the strategic plan.
Mr. Skeen. If applicable, a. What lessons did the agency learn from
its participation in the Results Act pilot phase and how are those
lessons being applied to agency-wide Results Act efforts? b. What steps
is the agency taking to build the capacity (information systems,
personnel skills, etc.) Necessary to implement the Results Act?
Response. ARS was not an OMB-designated GPRA pilot program. The
Agency did, however, conduct some informal internal pilot projects to
test the application of GPRA principles in an intramural research
environment. These pilot projects successfully identified approaches
the agency could use in meeting the requirements of GPRA.
Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to solicit and
consider the views of stakeholders as they develop the strategic plans.
Stakeholders can include state and local governments, interest groups,
the private sector, and the general public, among others. Who do you
consider to be your agency's primary stakeholders and how will you
incorporate their views into the strategic plans?
Response. ARS defines stakeholders as organizations or individuals
that have an interest in the work of the agency but do not directly use
the agency's products. The ARS strategic plan identifies the following
organizations or categories of organizations as stakeholders:
Legislative branch; Executive branch; ARS employees; National and
international organizations; Producer and processor organizations; Food
and commodity organizations; Foreign countries/governments; Trade
organizations; Environmental organizations; Retail organizations; and
Consumer organizations.
ARS defines customers as individuals or organizations that directly
use ARS products or services. The ARS strategic plan identifies the
following organizations or categories of organizations as customers:
Producers (farmers, growers, and ranchers) and processors; National and
international organizations; Advocacy groups; Commodity and futures
markets; International trade organizations; International science and
research organizations; Legislative Branch; Executive Branch; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Secretary of Agriculture; Other mission
areas; Action and regulatory agencies; Office of Budget and Program
Analysis; Inspector General; Chief Financial Officer; Other Federal
agencies; Scientific community; Medical community; Health and dietary
community; Environmental community; State and local Governments; and
News media.
The first step ARS took in developing its GPRA strategic plan was
to convene 5 regional visioning conferences that solicited input from
the agency's customers, stakeholders, partners, and employees. When the
visioning process was complete the information it generated was used in
developing the ARS plan. As required by GPRA, the ARS Strategic
Planning Team (SPT) developed an aggressive plan to secure comments
from ARS employees, customers, stakeholders, partners, and the general
public. The draft plan, and a invitation for review and combat, was
placed on the ARS Home Page where it was available to users of the
Internet. The draft plan was also printed in the Federal Register on
July 22, 1996 (vol. 61, no. 141) with a formal 30 day comment period
which closed on August 21, 1996. Approximately 1,400 copies of the
Federal Register reprint were mailed to ARS customers, stakeholders and
partners. On Wednesday, July 24, ARS participated in an ARS-wide
employee telecast designed to briefly introduce the Agency plan.
Employees and partners who viewed the telecast were told how to access
copies of the ARS plan and invited to submit comments. The SPT received
and carefully reviewed approximately 50 written and E-mail comments on
the ARS draft strategic plan during the review period. The comments
were positive, substantive, thoughtful, and helpful to the task of
developing the plan. This is the process that ARS used to incorporate
the views of its customers and stakeholders into its strategic plan.
Mr. Skeen. For the Results Act to be successful, agencies with
similar missions, goals, or strategies will need to ensure that their
efforts are coordinated. What other federal agencies are you working
with to ensure that your strategic plans are coordinated? What steps
have you taken to ensure that your efforts complement and do not
unnecessarily duplicate other federal efforts?
Response. ARS worked closely with the Office of the USDA Under
Secretary for Research, Education and Economics (REE), with the other
REE agencies Economic Research Service (ERS), Cooperative, State,
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), and National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and with a wide range of action
and regulatory agencies that use the products of the agency's research
in developing its plan. Working collegially within the REE mission area
framework will ensure that the four principle Federal agricultural
research components will not duplicate activities unnecessarily.
Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to consult with
Congress as they develop their strategic plans. Since these plans are
due in September, now is the time for agencies to begin the required
consultations. What are your plans for congressional consultations as
you develop your strategic plan? Which Committees will you consult
with? How will you resolve differing views?
Response. All USDA Mission Areas/Agencies have prepared draft
Strategic Plans which are currently being reviewed by the Under/
Assistant Secretary (or other relevant official), the Senior Policy
Staff and the Secretary. Upon completion of the review, the Department
plans to provide copies of the Strategic Plan (including an overall
Departmentwide Executive Summary and the Strategic Plans for individual
Mission Areas/Agencies) to relevant Congressional Committees.
Thereafter, we will look forward to meeting with Members or Staff to
discuss our Strategic Plan and to solicit your input and advice on
refinements to that Plan.
We plan to provide copies of the Department Strategic Plan to the
following Committees: Senate Agriculture Committee; Senate
Appropriations Committee (Agriculture); Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee; House Agriculture Committee; House Education and
Work Force Committee; House Appropriation Committee (Agriculture);
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee; House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee.
In passing the Results Act, Congress sought to fundamentally change
the focus of federal management and decision making to be more results-
oriented. Organizations that have successfully become results-oriented
typically have found that making the transformation envisioned by the
Results Act requires significant changes in what they do and how they
do it.
Mr. Skeen. What changes in program policy, organization structure,
program content, and work process has the agency made to become more
results-oriented?
Response. In implementing GPRA, ARS has taken or is taking a number
of steps that will change the way the agency manages its research
program. These steps include:
Organizing approximately 1,100 research projects into 25 new
National Programs that will enhance programmatic accountability.
Restructing the National Program Staff so that interdisciplinary
teams of National Program Leaders (NPLs) will now oversee the new
National Programs. In the past, individual NPLs were responsible for
number of research projects.
Developing interactive home pages on the INTERNET for each National
Program that will keep customers and stakeholders informed of the most
recent developments that may be of interest to them (full
implementation of this activity may require a year or two).
Mr. Skeen. How are managers held accountable for implementing the
Results Act and improving performance?
Response. As the new organizational and programmatic structure is
fully implemented, the managers' performance standards will be modified
to hold them accountable for their new responsibilities.
Mr. Skeen. How is the agency using Results Act performance goals
and information to drive daily operations?
Response. In implementing GPRA, ARS has taken or is taking a number
of steps that will change the way the agency operates. These steps
include: organizing approximately 1,100 research projects into 25 new
National Programs that will dramatically change the way the agency
manages its research programs, and restructuring the National Program
Staff so that interdisciplinary teams of National Program Leaders
(NPLs) will oversee the new National Programs (under current
operations, NPLs are responsible for a number of individual research
projects). The new Strategic Plan will change the way the agency
presents its budget, and articulates its programs, giving both a
distinct outcome/impact orientation.
Southern Regional Research Center
Mr. Livingston. Last year the Committee provided $450,000 for the
Southern Regional Research Center to conduct a broad-based research
program to investigate the mechanisms of production and action of
phytoestrogens, the design and formulation of pharmacologically active
forms of candidate phytoestrogens, and to test their efficacy in animal
and human subjects. How is the Department responding to this
recommendation?
Response. The amount of funds that were finally provided to ARS was
$350,000. After appropriate allocation of funds for administrative
expenses, the Southern Regional Research Center received $315,000. Of
these funds, $105,000 were retained by the Southern Regional Research
Center and $210,000 were used to fund a specific cooperative agreement
with Tulane University; $10,000 of these funds were provided to Xavier
University through a specific cooperative agreement. Research at the
Southern Regional Research Center focuses on the identification of the
role of microbes in influencing the biosynthesis in legumes of
isoflavonoids with potential phytoestrogenic activities and to develop
procedures to manipulate isoflavonoid content in legumes. Funds
designated for Tulane University supports research testing individual
or combinations of isoflavonoid compounds for phytoestrogenic effects
in animal systems, or in rapid microbial assays that mimic animals
systems. Xavier University scientists will be involved in testing
versions of phytoestrogens with the goal of identifying those with high
activity and minimal potential side effects when consumed by animals or
humans.
In addition to the research initiated by the new funds, $600,000 of
ARS funds at the Arkansas Children's Nutrition Research Center will be
used in FY 97 for the purpose of determining the effects of
phytoestrogens on long term health of children. The Beltsville Human
Nutrition Research Center, Food Composition Laboratory, has allocated
funds of $129,900 for phytoestrogen research mainly in the area of
identification, quantitation, and bio-availability in humans. In FY
1996, phytoestrogen research was supported by funds totaling $437,100
from the National Research Initiative; $195,000 at the University of
Minnesota, St. Paul and $242,000 at the Tufts University, Boston, MA.
The Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service
(CSREES) also supports 17 research projects through formula and grant
funds in which $288,000 is designated for the identification,
quantitation, and mechanism of action of phytoestrogens.
Mr. Livingston. What are some of the benefits of this research and
is this an important area of scientific research?
Response. There are two types of phytoestrogens; they are
isoflavones found in soybeans and soy products, and lignans found in
high fiber foods such as flax and rye products, and selected fruits and
vegetables. Based on some epidemiological and biological studies, they
are believed to prevent sex-hormone related diseases such as breast and
prostate cancer. This is an important area of research because expanded
knowledge on the effects of phytoestrogens on health should enhance the
quality of life, particularly in the aging population, have a positive
impact on health care costs, and create an expanded market for soybean
products and other foods containing phytoestrogens.
Mr. Livingston. What are the Department's plan for FY 98 and what
type of funding would be necessary, should Congress make it available,
for any follow up efforts?
Response. Because phytoestrogens, and phytochemcials in general,
are of nutritional importance for health and quality of life, the
Department plans to continue support for research in this area. Because
the Department has the Federal lead role in human nutrition, much of
the support for the research on phytoestrogens and phytochemicals will
be directed towards the ARS Human Nutrition Research Centers. The
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research center, Food Composition
Laboratory, will continue research to identify, quantitate, and assess
bioavailability of phytoestrogens to humans. The Arkansas Children's
Nutrition Research center, Little Rock, Arkansas will continue research
on the long-term effects of phytoestrogens on the health of children.
However, more funding in this area of research is needed, especially
for nutritional studies using human volunteers. The Department has
recommended a multi-year increase of $53 million in human nutrition
research of which $12 million is being requested in FY 1998. This
increase will have as one of its major areas of emphasis the role of
phytochemicals including phytoestrogens in preventing chronic diseases
such as cancer, cataracts, and heart disease. Each of the six ARS Human
Nutrition Research Centers have projects that will be initiated if
Congress should make available the recommended increase in funds for
human nutrition research.
fungal phytase
Mr. Livingston. What is the status of ongoing research on the
genetic engineering of fungal phytase to reduce groundwater
contamination?
Response. Genetic engineering research on fungal phytase to reduce
groundwater contamination is conducted at the Agricultural Research
Service's Southern Regional Research Center (SRRC) in New Orleans,
Louisiana. Phytic acid, a natural component in soybean meal, is the
major storage form for phosphorous in soybean seeds. Pigs, chickens and
other non-ruminant animals lack an enzyme, phytase, in their digestive
tract to digest this compound. All this ``phytin'' phosphorus is
therefore excreted in animal wastes which contribute to the phosphorus
load on the environment. If phytic acid could be digested by addition
of a phytase enzyme to animal feeds, costly phosphorus feed supplements
could be eliminated and groundwater contamination could be reduced.
Research at SRRC is focused on developing phytases for this application
that would be more stable and useful than those currently available.
Recent research at SRRC has led to identification of several
sources of unique, heat-stable fungal phytases. Researchers are
characterizing the genes encoding the enzymes. Molecular modification
and genetic engineering techniques will be used to increase the
activity and efficiency of these heat stable phytases to produce a
superior phytase for the animal feed industry. Use of such enzymes in
feeds will result in greater phosphorus utilization by animals and in
less phosphorus in animal wastes. The potential impact from this animal
feed additive research is projected to be in excess of $186 million per
year.
Mr. Livingston. Is this effort budgeted for in FY 98?
Response. Yes, these funds are included in the FY 98 budget.
Mr. Livingston. What level of funding in FY 98 would be necessary
to maintain current research efforts?
Response. The funding required to maintain current research efforts
in FY 98 is $564,000.
research, education, and economics
Mr. Walsh. As you know, the floriculture and nursery industry
represents nearly 11 percent of all U.S. farm crop cash receipts yet
there has been hardly any federal agricultural research in this area.
In your 1998 budget request you are proposing to drop funding for the
small level of research that is done on floriculture and nurseries.
Could you please tell me the progress and status of your research
on floriculture and the nursery industry and why are you redirecting
funds away from this valuable research in your budget request?
Response. ARS recognizes the importance of the floral and nursery
industries to the U.S. economy. ARS has worked closely with industry to
establish research priorities. Recent progress includes the
introduction of new varieties and the development of improved methods
of pest and disease control that are more environmentally acceptable.
The total ARS base research program on floral and nursery crops in
fiscal year 1996 was $7,316,100. In fiscal year 1997, Congress
appropriated an additional $200,000 to support floriculture and nursery
research. This additional increment of funding was not included in the
ARS budget for fiscal year 1998; however, $7,157,700 will continue to
be spent on research benefitting the floriculture industry. The
Department was required to make difficult choices to terminate selected
projects in order to initiate new programs in the broader national
interest.
condition of facilities at fresno, california
Mr. Fazio. The administration's budget request has very few
proposed new facilities,but obviously deems the facility in Parlier,
California to be a high priority.
Please describe the current condition of the present facility and
the benefits that will be gained if the committee decides to fund the
budget request.
Response. The existing laboratories at Fresno, California, have
conducted applied and fundamental research in support of the
agricultural industries in the San Joaquin Valley and the western
United States for the past 80 years. The industries and U.S. science
have prospered because of ARS efforts and commitment. During this
period the agricultural industries have grown more complex and are
impacted by rapidly changing environmental, societal, regulatory, and
immigration issues. More directly, in order for U.S. agricultural
industries to complete effectively in a global economy, it is
imperative that sound technical information, new technologies, and
innovations are forthcoming from research to support these endeavors.
The present aged-structures are wood framed, concrete block building,
and trailer laboratories that are timeworn, antiquated, and the
location also suffers from urban encroachment. All of the existing
facilities have had additions and alternations made to them since they
were first constructed in the 1920's and 1930's. Some of the early
buildings need seismic upgrading. The structures cannot adequately be
relied upon to provide the expected technical and logistic supports for
the vital national agricultural industries. California produces over 50
percent of the nation's fresh fruits and vegetables and dried fruits
and nuts. These commodities are distributed domestically and exported
worldwide which contributes significantly to the economy of California
and the nation's balance of payments. This recognition that agriculture
is the lifeline of human existence and the foundation of commerce and
industry necessitates that a modern facility be constructed. The
mission of the San Joaquin Valley Agriculture Center is to increase
food and fiber production, efficiently utilize and conserve water and
other natural resources, develop quarantine treatments for new markets
and alternatives to chemical based treatments, maintain postharvest
fruit quality and protect fresh and dried commodities from pathogens
and pests in order to secure domestic food adequacy and enhance
exports.
There will be 26 scientists and support staff (120 total) housed in
the new facility.
The realization of the planned facility equipped with state-of-the-
art equipment and instrumentation will provide the Agency with the
capability to meet the needs and challenges of tomorrow's
biotechnological agriculture. The new facilities also will be in closer
proximity to research plots and will reduce the current need for plots
in 5 locations scattered throughout central and coastal California.
methyl bromide research
Mr. Fazio. What steps is USDA taking to find an alternative to
methyl bromide?
Response. ARS is conducting research at 19 locations to find
alternatives to present soil fumigation and postharvest uses of methyl
bromide. ARS is seeking alternatives to soil fumigation through several
approaches: 1) new cultural practices; 2) improved host-plant
resistance to pests and diseases; 3) biological control systems using
beneficial microorganisms; 4) safer fumigants; and 5) combinations of
the above. For postharvest treatment, research is directed at 1)
creation of pest-free agricultural zones; 2) physical methods such as
heat or cold treatment or storage in modified atmospheres; 3)
alternative fumigants; 4) methyl bromide trapping and recycling
technologies; 5) biological control; and 6) combinations of the above.
Mr. Fazio. Will we have an alternative by 2001?
Response. ARS has undertaken a multifaceted approach to identifying
alternatives to methyl bromide by 2001. Because ARS has for many years
been developing non-chemical procedures to replace chemical soil and
postharvest fumigations, ARS has several accomplishments in this area.
Postharvest treatments ARS has developed or assisted in developing
include cold treatment for citrus and carambola from Florida to Japan;
pest-free certification for walnuts to New Zealand; heat treatment for
papaya and cold treatment for carambola from Hawaii to Japan and
mainland U.S.; phospine fumigation of hay to Japan; gamma irradiation
treatment of exotic fruit and blueberry; and forced hot air protocol
for control of medfly in citrus.
Accomplishments pertinent to replacing methyl bromide as a soil
treatment include the identification of improved strawberry and
vegetable varieties with increased resistance to some soilborne
diseases and pests; microbiological agents for the biological control
of some soilborne diseases of vegetables and ornamental crops; improved
cultural practices, such as improved soil preparation, crop rotation
systems, and altered planting dates, to mitigate the effects of some
soilborne pests of strawberries, vegetable, and ornamental crops; and
improved pesticide formulation and application technology for available
chemicals other than methyl bromide to control plant parasitic
nematodes. Other related research found that non-pathogenic variants of
a tomato-infecting fungus were shown to be effective in controlling
pathogenic strains. Grapevine and peach rootstocks with improved
nematode resistance also have been developed. Methods were devised for
mass-producing and stabilizing mycoherbicidal fungi for control of
several weed species. Solarization of soil was shown to be effective
for controlling weeds in vegetable production. Root-knot nematode
resistance has been incorporated into commercial bell peppers.
Mr. Fazio. Will your agency work within this Administration and
with the appropriate congressional committees to make certain that our
farmers have a level playing field in 2001?
Response. Loss of methyl bromide as a postharvest commodity and
soil fumigant will adversely affect crop production in the United
States, as well as both export and import trade between the U.S. and
its trading partners. Additionally, methyl bromide is the only
available tool for emergency use to permit movement of commodities out
of agricultural areas quarantined because of the Mediterranean fruit
fly or other pest outbreaks. Serious economic losses to U.S. producers
and handlers of many agricultural commodities are anticipated if
economically feasible alternatives are not available after January 1,
2001. The development of alternative technologies to the use of methyl
bromide is one of USDA's highest research priorities. I, as Secretary
of Agriculture, will work with anyone who can assist our farmers in
having a level playing field in 2001.
integrated pest management plan
Ms. DeLauro. It seems that striking the right balance between pest
control and environmental concerns is essential, and I applaud the
Department's efforts with regard to the Integrated Pest Management
plan. I understand you are looking at the broad implications of
pesticides. I would like to know what positive health effects IPM
practices might have?
Response. Integrated pest management relies primarily on biological
and ecological tools as alternatives to sole reliance on chemical
pesticides. Increased adoption of IPM practices will reduce the
nation's reliance and use of chemical pesticides in agriculture, and
thus reduce environmental and human exposure to these chemicals.
Positive health effects due to IPM practices might include decreased
exposure to pesticide residues on food and in the environment.
lyme disease research
Ms. DeLauro. An ongoing concern, particularly in my home state of
Connecticut, is the debilitating effects of Lyme Disease. I appreciate
the Department's past support for Lyme Disease research and ask that
you provide a brief update on the Department's efforts. Are we making
progress? Where might we make the most progress in the future?
Response. ARS scientists at Kerrville, Texas, have developed lyme
tick control technologies that are broadly applicable to Connecticut
and neighboring States. Two devices called ``Four Poster'' and
``Medicaid Corn Bait'' have been proven to be very effective in
controlling ticks on white-tailed deer, which are the primary host
animals responsible for reproduction and maintenance of the black-
legged tick population in the suburban areas. These two devices will
reduce the risk of human infection with the agent of Lyme disease by
controlling ticks on white-tailed deer. The ``Four Poster'' is a
recently patented topical acaricide treatment device, and can be used
to control ticks on deer during hunting season. It delivers a known
minimum quantity of acaricide in the tick infested areas of neck and
ears when deer rub against the four posts while feeding on unmedicated
corn. Under EPA regulations, the deer treated with Amitraz in the
``Four Poster'' can be hunted right away and its meat can be consumed
without any risk of tissue residue. The ``Medicated Corn Bait'' device
containing ivermectin-treated whole kernel corn is best suited for
controlling ticks on deer during non-hunting season or in wild refuge
areas. The FDA required a 90-day ivermectin-free feeding period before
hunting for meat consumption.
On November 13, 1996, ARS scientists, together with a cooperator at
the Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, held a meeting with State
officials to plan for the use of ARS tick control devices in
Connecticut. Thea attendees included the State public health and
regulation officials, the director and two members of the staff of the
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, faculty of the Yale
University, and a local wildlife biologist. The overall response for
ARS-Yale pilot tick control project was very positive. Possible pilot
test sites discussed included areas around Lyme and Old Lyme,
Connecticut, where the incidence of disease is high and for which a
substantial database on the epidemiology of Lyme disease exists. A
private game-proofed fenced area near Bridgeport, Connecticut, was
offered as a site for preliminary studies.
Currently, the pilot tick control project is waiting EPA approval
for an Experimental Use Permit for use of Amitraz, an effective and
safe acaricide which will be used in the ``Four Poster'' device.
maricopa agricultural center
Mr. Pastor. Because growth in the Phoenix metropolitan area has
made field research at the present facilities of the Water Conservation
Laboratory and the Western Cotton Research Laboratory impossible,
Congress provided $396,000 in FY 1995 for the planning and design of
the consolidation and relocation of these facilities to the University
of Arizona Maricopa Agricultural Center (MAC). MAC is an irrigated farm
40 kilometers south of Phoenix, encompasses 766 hectares and is
suitable for both small and large field research. It has research
plots, demonstration fields, laboratories, offices, meeting rooms and
temporary living quarters. An excellent history of cooperation exist
between ARS and the University of Arizona, especially at MAC, and the
relocation would allow both to better serve Arizona and the Southwest
region of the United States.
Madam Secretary, can you tell me what work has been done to date
with the funds that have been appropriated?
If no work has been done with the appropriated funds, can you tell
me what additional funding is necessary to carry out the planning and
design of this relocation?
Response. The cost of the planning and design of the Maricopa
Agricultural Center is projected at $5.5 million. An additional $5.1
million is required to supplement the $396,000 appropriated in fiscal
year 1995 in order for ARS to proceed with the planning and design of
this project.
Vomitoxin
Mr. Barcia. In the last two years, wheat growers in Michigan,
Indiana, Ohio and a number of other states have encountered problems
with vomitoxin, which present yields with unacceptably high levels of
toxic concentrations. There is concern about whether or not sufficient
research is being done on this subject.
Can you describe how much research ARS currently has underway, and
whether or not your FY '98 request in any way expands upon this
research?
Response. Current ARS research on wheat scab disease and associated
vomitoxin contamination of wheat is focused on development of an
understanding of the etiology of the disease on wheat, knowledge of the
mechanism of how this mycotoxin is formed, assay procedures for the
fungus and vomitoxin, and prevention of Fusarium scab before harvest
through breeding for resistance. This research is conducted at ARS
locations in Peoria, Illinois, and St. Paul, Minnesota, totaling
$275,100 in funding. Increases are requested in fiscal year 1998 at
Pullman, Washington for $300,000 and St. Paul, Minnesota for $250,000
to develop control strategies utilizing bioengineering technologies to
enhance natural resistance in crops.
Mr. Barcia. What do you believe to be the most essential research
needs with respect to vomitoxin that are not being funded with your FY
'98 request, including the cost of each of those research needs?
Response. The most essential research needs not being adequately
funded are correlation of weather conditions with severe infection in
order to adequately predict when an epidemic will occur ($250,000) and
acceptable effective biological control methods ($250,000).
Mr. Barcia. Can you tell us whether or not other private entities
are conducting additional vomitoxin research that you consider to be of
importance?
Response. Private companies and the Federal Grain Inspection
Service of USDA are developing ``quick test'' kits for assaying for
vomitoxin contamination in the marketplace. Problems still exist with
cost, time of assay and sensitivity of presently used test kits.
Mr. Barcia. I understand that vomitoxin has been present in Europe
for some years, and the tolerance levels for vomitoxin in Europe both
safeguard human health while being higher than US tolerance levels.
What can you tell the committee about the European experience?
Response. The two European countries that have thus far addressed
vomitoxin have established lower tolerance limits that those in the
U.S. Available epidemiological data is not sufficient to assess the
effect on public health of regulations in the various countries.
Dissemination of Research Information
Mr. Barcia. Research information is not of great value to the
public unless they can get access to it. What is being done to harness
the latest developments in information technology to make long-term
scientific data and information more available to the research
community and the public?
Response. The ARS Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) developed a
Home Page in fiscal year 1996, offering interactive on-line access to
research information, commercial opportunities and technology transfer
programs from the Internet. Through the OTT Home Page, ARS customers
can access newly-issued ARS patents and recently filed patent
applications available for license are accessible to the private
sector. Licensing information is available on-line and patent
information is updated monthly to ensure that private sector customers
are kept aware of the latest commercial opportunities. The OTT Home
Page also provides on-line visitors with direct access to ARS
regionally-based technology transfer coordinators, who can be E-mailed
directly for further inquiries. In addition, more than 13,000 pre-
publication research projects can be accessed through the TEXTRAN data
base, which was put on the Internet in fiscal year 1996. Records from
the National Agricultural Library show that inquiries for this
information exceeds 20,000 per month.
To obtain financing information, private sector customers can be
linked directly from the OTT Home Page to sister USDA agencies, such as
the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RB-CS), Alternative
Agricultural Research and Commercialization (AARC) program and the
Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) administered through
the Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES).
Industrial and public customers or ARS research can also E-mail
individual technology requests for search by ARS staff from the OTT
Home Page. More than 30 specialized requests from industry were
received and answered in fiscal year 1996.
fda joint institute for food safety and applied nutrition
Mr. Barcia. There has been a great emphasis in recent years on food
safety research. The Food and Drug Administration has established a
Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition with the
University of Maryland at College Park. Can you tell the committee to
what extent ARS may be involved in this project, and to what extent you
may have been consulted in its development?
Response. ARS has held some preliminary discussions with the Food
and Drug Administration in regard to participation in the Joint
Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition with the University of
Maryland at College Park. Areas of possible joint interest have been
identified, but no formal arrangements for participation have been
developed.
genetically engineered fruits and vegetables
Mr. Barcia. A panel of the National Academy of Sciences reported
last year that food borne carcinogenic risk to human health from
naturally occurring agents, such as chemicals produced by plants
themselves, is likely greater than that from man-made chemicals. This
may be a particular concern with genetically engineered fruits and
vegetables that may lead to increased production of defensive toxins by
these plants. What work, if any, has ARS been doing in this area, and
to what extent have you coordinated with the National Institute for
Environmental Health Sciences and the Food and Drug Administration?
Response. The ARS does not know of any substantive scientific
studies that point to any increased production of defensive toxins by
genetically engineered fruits and vegetables. Thus, the Agency has no
basis on which to carry out studies to assess toxic potential of these
crops emanating from their alleged production of defensive toxins. If
the NIEHS or the FDA does identify any problem areas, the ARS will work
with them to help provide solutions.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
fiscal year 1998 budget request
Mr. Skeen. Please provide for the record the fiscal year 1998
budget funding level, by program, requested by the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) to the Secretary,
the level requested by the Secretary to OMB, and the final OMB
allowance. Please provide this information for each of the categories
reflected in the summary table on pages 184 and 185 of last year's
hearings.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 235 - 236--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
agency audits
Mr. Skeen. Provide a brief description of all GAO, OIG, and
internal audits that are ongoing.
Response. The following audits are ongoing or in final stages of
completion:
Small Business Innovation Research--SBIR--Program--Audit Report No.
13-099-1-KC.--All recommendations in the audit report have been closed
out except for two recommendations relating to questioned costs
involving an award made by the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service--CSREES--to a small business enterprise. With
respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program--SBIR--grants
awarded to this particular enterprise, the audit concluded that the
grantee did not manage the funds with reasonable care and did not
comply with regulations governing allowable costs and financial record
keeping. The audit identified $17,468 in expenses which were improperly
applied against grant funds and $176,855 in expenses which were not
supported by records or related to funded research efforts. CSREES
corresponded and reviewed documentation provided by the grantee to
evaluate the property of an support for claimed expenditures of grant
funds, and based on this review, determined that the grantee had not
provided acceptable documentation to support questioned costs in the
amount of $54,276. Numerous attempts to obtain from the grantee the
additional documentation or justification to support this amount were
unsuccessful, and the account was referred to the USDA National Finance
Center--NFC--for collection. NFC has referred the account to a private
collection agency, which also has not been successful in the collection
of the debt. The delinquent account will not be referred to credit
bureaus and the Internal Revenue Service for offset from the grantee's
income.
The Oceanic Institute--OI--Audit Report Nos. 50099-1-SF and 13099-
1-HQ.--Final action has been completed on 10 of the 25 recommendations
in the audit reports. Of the remaining 15 recommendations, all
administrative and corrective actions are complete and a schedule has
been established for the repayment of the disallowed costs. The total
amount of disallowed costs is $972,476. Final action is contingent upon
final payment which is scheduled for May 2003. OI has already made two
payments totaling $215,000 in 1996. The third installment payment,
including interest, is due May 1997, and future installments are due in
May of succeeding years. The installment payments returned by OI for
disallowed costs are credited to the Agency's appropriation account.
These funds can be reobligated by the Agency provided the funds are
used for the same purposes as set forth in the appropriation act in
which they were initially appropriated (fiscal year 1988). The fiscal
year 1988 appropriation act provides that ``the alteration, and
purchase of fixed equipment or facilities and for grants to states and
other eligible recipients for such purposes to carry out the
agriculture research, extension, and teaching programs of the
Department of agriculture.'' At this time, no grant awards have been
made with the funds returned by the OI. CSREES and the Office of
Inspector General--OIG--also have recently completed a joint follow-up
review at OI. The review included an evaluation of OI's implementation
of the corrective actions and revised management procedures addressing
the findings and recommendations in the audit reports. Based on the
results of this review and a recently issued organization-wide audit of
OI for the two-year period ended December 31, 1995, we believe that OI
has taken definite and positive actions to implement the corrective
actions and revised management procedures that were recommended in the
audit reports.
Oregon-Massachusetts Biotechnology Partnership--Audit Report No.
13801-1-Hy.--OIG has accepted the corrective action plan proposed by
CSREES for 20 of the 21 recommendations in the report. However,
additional action--i.e., bill the grantee for disallowed costs, prepare
the request for proposals, etc.--must be taken by CSREES to reach a
final management decision with OIG. Also, OIG did not accept the
corrective action proposed by CSREES on one recommendation relating to
anti-lobbying violations. CSREES is currently negotiating with OIG to
reach a solution to this issue.
1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program--Audit Report No.
13011-1-AT.--Final action has been completed on 6 of the 12
recommendations. Final action for the remaining recommendations will be
completed in 1997. These actions include completing the long-term
strategic plan for the program, developing performance measures which
will measure the effectiveness of the program, conducting a program
evaluation of the program, and revising the audit compliance supplement
to include review procedures of this program.
tobacco research
Mr. Skeen. Are there any funds being used in fiscal year 1997 for
tobacco research? By what means did you advise all grantees for Hatch
Act funds or other Federal funds of the tobacco research restriction?
Response. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service no longer approves Federally-supported research projects that
deal with tobacco production, processing, or marketing. This policy was
initially communicated to research directors in tobacco-producing
states by telephone in 1992. Subsequently, if projects proposing to
conduct research on these topics are revised, the institution is
instructed to either withdraw the project or take out those activities
related to tobacco.
Some Federally-funded research uses tobacco as a model system for
basic genetic and physiology studies. Research dealing with the health
effects of tobacco use is still permitted.
biotechnology risk assessment
Mr. Skeen. Section 1668 of the Farm Bill requires that one percent
of the biotech funds shall be set aside for risk assessment. Please
provide a table for the record listing all USDA biotech funds, by
agency, for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
[The information follows:]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Agency --------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service................. $47,919 $79,146 $63,875
Agricultural Research Service.......... 81,962 77,439 75,261
Forest Service......................... 7,210 7,200 6,800
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 137,091 163,785 145,936
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For CSREES, FY 1996 was the first year that the National Research
Initiative (NRI) was no-year money. Statistics included in this table
for FY 1996 are based on actual obligations. The estimate for FY 1997
includes the remainder of FY 1996 grants to be awarded in FY 1997 plus
estimates for FY 1997 awards.
plant genome mapping
Mr. Skeen. For each of the following commodities what is the status
of their genome mapping: corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and peanuts?
Response. Genome mapping for the commodities mentioned has advanced
rapidly since 1991, largely due to research projects supported by the
USDA. The USDA Plant Genome Research Program has led the research
efforts to identify molecular markers that can be used as
``diagnostic'' tools to identify genes important to agriculture. Map
information for the commodities mentioned, and many others, is
maintained at the USDA National Agricultural Library for use by the
research community.
In corn, over 6,500 molecular markers and 850 genes have been
mapped. Coordination efforts are now underway to integrate molecular
markers common to over 25 non-overlapping genome maps. Extensive
discovery of common genes and common gene order amongst maize and its
relatives--sorghum, rice, wheat, and barley--provides a broad set of
tools and knowledge that is useful across all four species.
In wheat, two major mapping efforts predominate with over 2,000
molecular markers mapped. The close relationship among wheat, barley,
and oat has been utilized to make ``comparative maps'' thus leveraging
the utility of genome information from any one of the three, for use on
the other two.
In soybeans, three maps comprised of over 2,000 molecular markers
are in use. Cooperative efforts are underway to integrate information
from these maps from more efficient use by the research community. Many
genes have been mapped, including genes associated with quality and
productivity traits such as seed oil and protein levels, as well as
disease resistance.
In cotton, maps include about 1,500 molecular markers. The cotton
map is being applied to the improvement of fiber quality in leading
cotton varieties.
In peanut, the first comprehensive map of cultivated peanut has
been initiated, and about 200 molecular markers have been mapped.
Researchers are making progress toward transferring new genes into
peanut from its wild relatives.
Mr. Skeen. Who has participated in the mapping?
Response. Since 1991, competitive grants were awarded to over 500
scientists from public, private, or government research institutions
from over 40 states. More than 50 agronomic, horticultural, and forest
tree species are included in the plant genome research effort. Most of
the awards went to efforts in Douglas fir, pine, poplar, arabidopsis,
brassica, alfalfa, bean, mungbean, pea, peanut, soybean, pepper,
potato, tomato, barley, corn, oats, rice, rye, sorghum, sugarcane, and
wheat.
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the recent accomplishments in this
area?
Response. Several accomplishments have been made. Genomic maps are
empowering contemporary geneticists to realize the potential
contribution of classical ``genetic stocks'' for improving our
understanding of disease, insect and nematode resistance, as well as
plant growth and development, chromosome pairing, and genome evolution.
Genomic maps are being aligned with those of Arabidopsis, a model plant
system, to use Arabidopsis genome information to accelerate progress in
identifying important agricultural traits. The close relationship among
plant species is being utilized to make ``comparative maps'' that
enables leveraging of genomic information and technology from other
related species. Recent results suggest that many disease resistance
genes isolated in other plants may also play important roles in other
crops, thus accelerating the rate at which scientists can respond to
new and existing disease outbreaks.
Mr. Skeen. How is this work coordinated with ARS?
Response. The USDA Plant Genome Research Program is a single
program with two parts: First, the competitive grants awarded through
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service's
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program--NRICGP; and
second, the Plant Genome Database funded through and managed by the
ARS. As part of the coordination, the ARS program staff reviews and has
the opportunity for defining the scope and description of the
competitive grants component of the program.
In addition, ARS scientists compete for and are awarded competitive
grants in support of ARS missions and goals in plant genome research,
and ARS scientists provide reviews of proposals and serve on panels
that provide the merit review and consensus rankings of proposals for
funding by this program. The ARS administrator serves on the NRICGP
Board of Directors that approves the annual NRICGP program description
and call for proposals to the USDA Plant Genome research program.
Competitive Grants are awarded for research aimed at improving
agronomic qualities through genomic research. The Request For Proposals
invites proposals addressing three areas: first, the generation of
molecular markers and mapping data, and map-based cloning of
agriculturally important plant genes; second, the development of new
technologies for genome mapping, genome manipulation, gene isolation,
or gene transfer in plants; and third, the use of genome technologies
to create new germplasm and varieties that solve problems important to
U.S. agriculture or will create new products for the U.S. agricultural
industry. All pertinent data should be deposited into the Plant Genome
Database.
The plant genome database component is aimed at the rapid
assimilation and analysis of genome mapping data so that it can be
disseminated to the user community electronically. The database is
handling tens of thousands of inquiries each month. The success in
making these analyses useful depends on appropriate database
development and subsequent easy access by the many researchers
throughout the country and the world who can benefit from its use.
Mr. Skeen. How much is being spent on each of these projects?
Response. The average size award for an NRI plant genome project is
approximately $60,000 per year for just under three years.
Mr. Skeen. Are there other plant genome mapping projects being
funded with CSREES monies?
Response. Plant genome mapping also is supported through the
Regional Barley Mapping special research grant, the Midwest
Biotechnology consortium special research grant, and Hatch Act formula
funds.
ir-4 and pesticide clearance
Mr. Skeen. Please provide for the record a table which shows total
USDA funding for IR-4 work for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Response. Total USDA funding for IR-4 for fiscal years 1996, 1997,
and 1998 is shown in the following table:
USDA IR-4 PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
USDA Agency --------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service (CSREES):
Hatch Act.......................... $475 $475 $475
Special Research Grants, Pesticide
Clearance......................... 5,711 5,711 10,711
--------------------------------
Subtotal, CSREES................. 6,186 6,186 11,186
Agricultural Research Service.......... 2,126 2,106 2,106
--------------------------------
Total, USDA...................... 8,312 8,292 13,292
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. How many registrations were completed in 1996 and what
is the goal for fiscal year 1997?
Response. Fewer registrations were completed in Fiscal year 1996
since the Environmental Protection Agency--EPA--did not grant
registrations after August 3 because of the Food Quality Protection
Act--FQPA. Nevertheless, the IR-4 Project completed 80 minor use
registrations and reregistrations on food crops in FY 1996, compared to
104 in FY 1995 and 141 in FY 1994; 891 new registrations on nursery and
floral crops; and 21 registrations for biological pest control
products. Goals for FY 1997 are 135 registrations on food crops, 220
ornamental crop registrations, and 30 registrations for biologicals.
Mr. Skeen. What is the current backlog of pesticide clearance
requests?
Response. There is presently a backlog of 1,248 clearance requests
for food crops, 2,115 registration requests for nursery and floral
crops, and 81 for biopesticides.
Mr. Skeen. What financial assistance do you receive from industry?
Response. Direct financial assistance from commodity producers and
the agricultural chemicals totalled $470,500 in FY 1996. During the
first two months of FY 1997, industry contributions have totalled
$30,000.
Mr. Skeen. The Department, through the Agricultural Marketing
Service, has for several years managed a program called the Pesticide
Data Program. Do you know if any of the data from that program have
been used to approve minor use registrations?
Response. IR-4 emphasizes data that complies with EPA mandated Good
Laboratory Practice (GLP) Standards to support a registration petition
submitted to EPA. The Pesticide Data Program also uses similar
laboratory analysis controls. PDP data have been used to support minor
use crop registration and special review activities. Recently, EPA
identified 14 minor use pesticides for which PDP will be providing data
in the registration process.
minor use animal drugs
Mr. Skeen. What is the backlog on minor use animal drugs and how
many were registered in 1996?
Response. Since the Minor Use Animal Drug Program was established,
282 drug requests have been submitted to the minor Use Animal Drug
Program for clearance. Working in conjunction with many universities,
other agencies, and numerous pharmaceutical companies, studies have
been completed for human safety, target animal safety, environmental
safety, and efficacy for 25 new drugs. The results, in the form of
public master files, were published in the Federal Register providing
clearance for 25 new drugs. Of the remaining 257 requests,
approximately 75 percent, or 193, are potential projects for the minor
use animal drug program. Currently, there are 24 active research
projects that will be continued through 1997 to establish data for
clearances. However, the backlog of requests continues to grow. Last
year, for example, 5 new drugs were approved, but 15 new requests were
received.
Limiting factors for the program include the lack of a
pharmaceutical company to sponsor the research, the unavailability of
research investigators, the fact that the drug is not approved in a
major species, and the insufficient funds for research. In addition,
the scope of the program has expanded due to increased emphasis on
aquatic species, the classification of veal and sheep as minor species,
and the requests from the gamebird industry. The importance of
environmental assessment, residue withdrawals and occupational safety
have increasingly been given more attention during the approval process
to help assure consumer protection.
Mr. Skeen. What is the goal for fiscal years 1997 and 1998?
Response. The regional coordinators and investigators expect to
complete the research for several additional animal drug studies in the
next two years. It is anticipated that the research in progress will
result in four new minor use animal drug approvals in 1997 and 1998.
One public master file is currently being reviewed for publication by
the Food and Drug Administration--FDA. The demands on the program
continue to increase for several reasons. New requests are received for
additional species, including non-food species such as llamas and
tropical fish. There is increased pressure on the Minor Use Animal Drug
program to include the development of production drugs such as spawning
hormones for certain aquaculture industries. The Animal Medical Drug
Use Clarification Act--AMDUCA--enacted in 1996, legalized extra-label
drug use by veterinarians. However, the legislation restricts extra-
label drug use through medication in feed; virtually the only route of
drug administration available to the aquaculture and game bird
industries as well as others.
Increased costs also are being incurred due to the need for
research laboratories to comply with Federal requirements for Good
Laboratory practices--GLP. More expensive analytical techniques and
sophisticated research are required especially to assure human safety
and target animal safety.
Mr. Skeen. What financial assistance do you receive from industry?
Response. The NRSP-7 Minor Use Animal Drug Program continues to
benefit from the pharmaceutical companies that have cooperated as
sponsors for animal drug research projects for this program. The major
contribution to NRSP-7 is the cost borne by the pharmaceutical industry
for the registration of drugs for a major species, estimated at
approximately $20 million per drug. Research data from these
registrations are used by the Minor Use Animal Drug Program to obtain
drug approval for use in a minor species, at cost of $200,000 or less
per drug. Thus, the pharmaceutical industry provides the major portion
of the cost of attaining drug approval. The drug manufacturers also
contribute to NRSP-7 by donating quantities of the drug for research
purposes, and often providing analytical analyses for residue studies.
The animal industries, together with the pharmaceutical industries,
routinely contribute research animals and other in-kind services for
the Minor Use Animal Drug Program. In several instances industry
provides direct financial support to the program, however, most of the
industries are quite small and their ability to provide support is
limited. Another significant contribution to the program is from
universities via in-kind contributions in terms of facilities,
equipment, salaries for researchers, animal caretakers, and general
support such as utilities and publication costs. Funding from non-
Federal sources includes state appropriations, direct contributions
from private industry, and endowments. The total support from non-
Federal sources is much greater than the funding provided by NRSP-7.
overhead rates
Mr. Skeen. For the last several years, the Appropriations Act for
the Department of Agriculture has limited the overhead rate on grants
to 14 percent. What has been the impact of this limitation on the
number of applications received?
Response. There is no easy measure of the effect of the limitation
of the overhead rate on grants to 14 percent. Because the National
Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program--NRICGP--has continued
to receive a large number of proposals, it could be inferred that many
institutions are not deterred by the limitation. However, there is no
way to estimate the number of additional proposals that would have been
submitted had the restriction not been in place because only
institutions willing to accept awards carrying the restrictions submit
proposals. Even under the current limitations, we continue to hear that
universities and/or colleges within universities are requiring academic
departments to make up from other sources the difference in the allowed
cost and the actual overhead costs. Further, it could be surmised that
institutions declining to submit proposals would be those private and
public institutions which lack a tradition of pursuing agricultural
research. Yet it is exactly these institutions which would be attracted
by the NRICGP to bring their resources to bear on agricultural
problems. In the six years since the inception of the NRICGP and during
which time there has been an overhead limitation, the submission rate
by the non-traditional institutions has not increased but has remained
constant at about 16-17 percent. The 1997 President's proposed budget
requests that the cap on indirect costs for NRICGP grants be raised to
25 percent. The 25 percent level is a better reflection of the true
costs of conducting research at universities and colleges and would be
a greater incentive for more institutions to participate in the
program, a central goal of the NRICGP.
Mr. Skeen. Please list for the record any universities or
organizations that have declined grants because of the overhead rate.
Response. Scientists at the Department of Energy are not allowed to
submit proposals to the National Research Initiative because there is a
requirement for recovery of actual costs by that Department. For
educational and research institutions, while there is limited anecdotal
evidence that some institutions do not permit submission of proposals,
thee is no means to determine their identity nor to know the extent to
which this occurs. The proposals are not submitted so that there is no
formal declination of a grant.
genome mapping
Mr. Skeen. How much of the NRI funds for fiscal years 1996 and 1997
have been for plant genome mapping?
Response. In fiscal year 1996, $9,080,665 of the National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants funds supported plant genome mapping.
Research submissions for fiscal year 1997 are currently undergoing
competitive peer review. Funding recommendations and award decisions
will be known by September 1997.
Mr. Skeen. How much of the NRI funds for fiscal years 1996 and 1997
have been for animal genome mapping?
Response. In fiscal year 1996, a total of $1,074,907 supported
animal genome projects. Research submissions for fiscal year 1997 are
currently undergoing competitive peer review. Funding recommendations
and award decisions will be known by September 1997.
competitive grants
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please provide a breakdown into the
smaller subsets of research for each of NRI components for 1996, 1997
and your proposal for 1998.
[The information follows:]
[Page 243--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
1890 institutions and tuskegee university
Mr. Skeen. Please update the table which appears on page 305 of
last year's hearings, which shows the total funds available to the 1890
institutions and Tuskegee University.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998
Program 1996 Actual Estimate Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Activities:
Evans-Allen formula.......... 27.7 27.7 27.7
Capacity Building Grants..... 9.2 9.2 9.2
Other Programs, Grants to
Other Historically Black
Institutions................ 3.4 2.8 2.0
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Res. & Educ.
Activities................ 40.3 39.7 38.9
======================================
Extension Activities:
Formula Payments for
Extension................... 25.1 25.1 25.1
Facilities Grants............ 7.8 7.5 7.5
Other Programs, Grants to
Other Historically Black
Institutions................ 1.8 1.9 3.6
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Extension
Activities................ 34.7 34.5 36.2
======================================
Other Agencies:
Cooperative Research, Support
of Agency Programs, Student
Assistant and Recruiting.... 16 15 18
======================================
Total, Program Funds....... 91 89.2 93.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
capacity building grants
Mr. Skeen. Please list for the record the capacity building grants
that were awarded in fiscal year 1996 and those that have been awarded
to date for fiscal year 1997.
[The information follows:]
[Page 245--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. Have any schools experienced problems during the past 12
months with the matching requirement?
Response. Matching funds have never been required under the 1890
Institution Capacity Building Grants Program. Initially, proposals that
had matching funds from institutional and outside resources were viewed
more favorably in the merit review process. However, the 1890
institutions stated that obtaining matching funds became increasingly
difficult. As a result, in 1995 the matching was simply encouraged. In
the proposed review process, matching is used to break ties between
otherwise equally-ranked projects. With this incentive, colleges still
endeavor to obtain commitments of matching, frequently in-kind
institutional or private sector contributions. As States have
experienced growing difficulties in funding higher education, these
types of support have become increasingly difficult to obtain and have
been withdrawn on occasion, leaving an institution with an almost
impossible obligation. In fiscal year 1996, the percentage of match
achieved on funded projects declined slightly to 45.7 percent from 47.4
percent in 1995.
animal health and disease research
Mr. Skeen. Please describe how the $4,775,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 1997 is being used for the animal health and disease
program.
Response. These funds will be used to support research projects on
a varity of animal health and disease issues at the land-grant
universities. For the most part, these funds are awarded via an
internal competitive review process at each institution, and the focus
is on starting research efforts on new or re-emerging problems. Some
funds are also used to bridge gaps in extramural funding on major
disease projects when that seems to be most desirable. Examples of
current projects include allocation of funds to support increased
efforts to determine the cause of the sudden increase in severity of
disease and resultant economic losses to the pork industry due to the
Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome--PRRS--virus in the
Midwest. Another project is focused on a prospective study of
management practices, and the incidence of human pathogens in pigs. The
specific goal is to generate epidemiologic data about the relationship
between numbers of such bacteria in the live animals and the incidence
of food-borne illness in a controlled population which eats the food
products coming from these production units. In addition to projects
which focus on specific disease agents, some funds are used by
institutions to purchase a major piece of equipment which enables
several researchers at that university to do better research and be
more competitive for extramural funding from programs such as the
National Research Initiative.
critical agricultural materials
Mr. Skeen. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, please describe how the
funds for Commercializing Alternative Crops at the Polymer Institute
are being used.
Response. This research continues to focus on utilizing
agricultural materials as feedstocks for new and/or potentially
valuable industrial products or product substitutes for the polymer
industry that have traditionally been derived from petroleum-based raw
materials. The polymer industry is the largest chemical products
industry in the world, and thus, there is much demand for polymer-
related products such as foams, adhesives, coatings, elastomers, and
high performance thin films. The University of Southern Mississippi is
one of the top two polymer science programs in America and provides to
U.S. agriculture the expertise, interest in agriculture, facilities,
significant industrial ties, and a professional commitment to
commercializing agricultural materials. Development work at the
University of Southern Mississippi emphasizes the execution of quality
science that can potentially lead to industrial products.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The Commercializing Alternative Crops program began in
fiscal year 1991 with an appropriation of $300,000; $400,000 was
appropriated per year in fiscal years 1992 and 1993; and $500,000 per
year in fiscal years 1994 through 1997, totalling $3,100,000.
Mr. Skeen. Does this project receive any other Federal (other than
USDA) funds? If so, please explain the source and amounts.
Response. The Polymer Institute at the University of Southern
Mississippi has received $100,000 from the Agricultural Research
Service from 1994-1997 for research conducted on the Chinese melon as a
polymer raw material.
Mr. Skeen. What has been accomplished to date with this funding?
Response. The original goal of the research was to plan and
establish an organizational structure and/or protocol for
commercializing agricultural products. This has been accomplished
through the technical work that has been performed, technology coverage
by patent protection, and manufacturing and marketing capability, i.e.,
the process for commercialization which has been established. The
Polymer Institute has performed focused research, marketed their
technology, and has submitted five patent applications in cooperation
with Celanese, Inc. Developmental research is being performed in
cooperation with L'Oreal, an internationally known cosmetics firm,
because of their interest in the novel odor-free, volatile organic
compound-free emulsion technology developed by the Polymer Institute.
Monsanto is in the process of developing a contractual relationship
with the research group, and work has been completed during 1996 for
DuPont, Lubrizol, Southern Chemical Formulators, and Celanese. The
research group has developed an agricultural based water-borne water
proofer for use on wood and other porous substrates. An industrial firm
is currently in pilot manufacturing and marketing stages with this
product. Novel ultraviolet cured coatings have been developed for
ultraviolet curing polymers, with no emissions of volatile organic
compounds.
The foam industry is a huge market for raw materials. Closed cell
or open cell foams, using vegetable oils can be blown with water,
resulting in no volatile organic compound emissions. These foams have
passed government regulations for shipping munitions, and are currently
being evaluated for biodegradability and powder contamination.
aquaculture centers
Mr. Skeen. Each year for the past several years, $4,000,000 has
been appropriated for the aquaculture centers. Please describe for the
Committee how the funds were used at each of these centers in fiscal
years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
Response. Funds have supported aquaculture research, development,
demonstration, and extension education in each of the five centers in
fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. During this period, the Northeastern
Regional Aquaculture Center has supported projects related to
aquaculture quality assurance; cultivation of scallops, hard clams,
salmon, and summer flounder; nutrition of striped bass; genetic
selection in oysters; aquaculture waste management; control of
predators; health management and disease control; aquaculture
education; and improved communications. The North Central Regional
Aquaculture Center has supported projects related to aquaculture
extension; economics and marketing; waste management; aquaculture
drugs; and cultivation of tilapia, yellow perch, hybrid striped bass,
walleye, sunfish, salmonids, crayfish, and baitfish. The Southern
Regional Aquaculture Center has supported projects related to
aquaculture waste management; food safety and sanitation of aquaculture
products; improvement of production efficiency; nutrient utilization
and diet optimization; management of off-flavor; yield verification;
and cultivation of catfish, baitfish, crawfish, and trout. The Tropical
and Subtropical Regional Aquaculture Center has supported projects
related to aquaculture waste management; aquaculture drugs; aquaculture
extension and training; information dissemination; health management
and disease control; marketing; stock enhancement through aquaculture;
culture technology for pacific threadfin and milkfish; cultivation of
new tropical species with market potential; and public policy impacts
on aquaculture. The Western Regional Aquaculture Center has supported
projects related to genetic improvement of salmonids and shellfish;
health management and disease control; aquaculture waste management;
development of sturgeon broodstocks; predator control; evaluation of
high performance feeds; and extension education.
Mr. Skeen. How do these centers coordinate their research with ARS,
other programs around the country, and with private industry?
Response. Coordination between the Regional Aquaculture Centers and
Agricultural Research Service--ARS--programs is accomplished through
the National Coordinating Council. The National Coordinating Council--
NCC--is composed of the directors of the five Regional Aquaculture
Centers and the CSREES program leaders. The ARS program leader
participates in NCC meetings. The National Coordinating Council meets
twice a year to assure that aquaculture programs and activities in
Research, Education, and Economics and the centers are well coordinated
and communicated. Coordination with their national programs in other
Federal agencies is accomplished through the Joint Subcommittee on
Aquaculture of the National Science and Technology Council. The Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture meets quarterly. Coordination with industry
is accomplished through Industry Advisory Councils at each of the five
centers, and through the National Aquaculture Industry Forum which
meets quarterly in Washington, DC.
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a table for the record showing the amount
of funding received by each center for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
1998.
[The information follows:]
CSREES AQUACULTURE CENTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year; funding--
---------------------------------------
Center 1998
1996 1997 estimate \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeastern.................... 760,480 760,480 760,480
North Central................... 760,480 760,480 760,480
Southern........................ 760,480 760,480 760,480
Tropical/Subtropical............ 760,480 760,480 760,480
Western......................... 760,480 760,480 760,480
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding levels presented for fiscal year 1998 represent the
Administration's budget request.
Mr. Skeen. The centers annually support approximately 60 projects.
What type of support is provided?
Response. The centers provide funding for research, development,
demonstration, and extension education in support of high priority
needs for the regions' aquaculture industry. Centers projects are
designed to directly impact aquaculture development in all states and
U.S. territories. Programs ensure a region-wide team approach to
projects jointly conducted by research, extension, government, and
industry personnel.
Mr. Skeen. Provide a few specific examples of these projects.
Response. At the Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center--NRAC,
researchers and industry collaborators from Maryland, Massachusetts,
New York, and Pennsylvania have been working together to reduce
nitrogen, phosphorous, and solid waste from farmed salmon, rainbow
trout, and striped bass production, by enhancing digestibility of
feeds. Results show that increased efficiency of retention of dietary
nitrogen and reduced waste discharge can be achieved in addition to
reduced reliance on costly fish meal by dietary inclusion of corn
gluten meal and soybean meal, with amino acid supplementation.
Application of these research findings will improve the sustainability
and environmental compatibility of a variety of aquaculture production
systems.
At the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center--NCRAC, scientists
from Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin have perfected out-of-
season spawning of white bass and developed improved methods for white
bass and striped bass sperm storage and transport. Many hybrid striped
bass producers have adopted the out-of-season spawning protocol in
order to more fully meet the global, year-round demand for these fish.
The out-of-season spawning research also involved extensive studies on
the use of human chorionic gonadotropin, hCG, to induce spawning. This
research served as a springboard to initiate an hCG target animal
safety study which is one of two pivotal studies needed to obtain FDA
approval for its use in aquaculture. The sperm extender technology
recently has been used for producing hybrids from parental stocks
separated by nearly a thousand miles. This project has led to improved
production efficiency and profitability in the national hybrid striped
bass industry.
At the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center--SRAC, cooperative
research by scientists from Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Kentucky, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee will lead to
substantial improvements in the profitability of aquaculture by
reducing the cost of meeting the fish's nutritional requirements and
increasing the efficiency of feed utilization. For example, dietary
supplementation of several vitamins in practical diets for channel
catfish may be reduced substantially without affecting fish growth or
health, resulting in decreased feed costs which represent a
considerable savings to the industry. Results indicate that
manipulation of dietary protein sources also may provide considerable
cost savings. Significant advancements also have been made on the
nutritional requirements of baitfish and how to meet those requirements
and most economically. This information will improve the efficiency and
profitability of baitfish production. Information concerning
nutritional requirements of hybrid striped bass and their utilization
of feedstuffs also has been obtained to allow optimization of diet
formulations that will reduce costs and improve production efficiency.
Several of the improvements in diet formulations and feeding schedules
already have been implemented in commercial production.
At the Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture--CTSA,
researchers have developed prevention and management strategies to
minimize losses from diseases that have had severe negative impacts on
production of several major farmed aquatic species in the Pacific
region. Research has led to a better understanding of the epidemiology
and control of bacterial diseases in Chinese catfish. Effective methods
have been developed for decontamination of marine shrimp farms impacted
by the introduction of viral pathogens. Practical on farm measures to
mitigate the impact of Taura Syndrome virus on marine shrimp farms have
also been developed.
At the Western Regional Aquaculture Center--WRAC, scientists from
California, Idaho, and Montana are cooperatively working to develop
sturgeon broodstocks and establish reliable production of domestic
seedstock for the aquaculture industry. Production of sturgeon has
relied on the capture of reproducing adults from the natural
environment, resulting in user conflicts, in an unreliable supply, and
in uncertain quality of seedstock. These investigations have led to
development of techniques for successful reproduction of captive
broodstocks and enabled reliable production of small fish for grow-out
as well as enabling the marketing of a new product from the industry,
domestic caviar.
rangeland research
Mr. Skeen. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $475,000 was
appropriated for grants for rangeland research. What is the major
thrust of this research and what has been accomplished?
Response. The Nation's grazing lands include well over 750 million
acres of rangelands. Rangelands are complex ecosystems that serve a
multitude of beneficial uses--whether they are used to graze livestock
as principal watersheds or as wildlife habitat and feedstock.
Rangelands, combined with other grazing lands, comprise more than half
the terrestrial United States. The research being conducted in this
program addresses the establishment of beneficial plants on the
rangeland and the management of those lands.
In fiscal year 1997, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service will award grants competitively to conduct applied
research on rangelands targeted at very specific research problems.
Recent accomplishments include:
(1) Measurement of the impact of grazing on nutrient cycling in
aspen and conifer soils. This study included determination of changes
in soil properties as a function of depth and grazing treatment.
(2) Bunchgrass is a generic term for a type of grass that dominates
the world's savannahs and grasslands. Research under the Rangeland
Research program is currently investigating the relationship of soil
organic carbon and nitrogen in the immediate vicinity of bunchgrass
growths. The effect of livestock grazing and annual burning will be
evaluated on bunchgrass productivity.
(3) Several species of shrubs have been identified for revegetation
of severely eroded and degraded range. These shrubs are tenacious and
hardy and will also provide winter feed for wildlife and livestock.
(4) Research in Montana is being sponsored under this program to
determine whether winter stress on cattle can be measured and predicted
accurately.
Mr. Skeen. Which institutions received these grants and in what
amounts for fiscal years 1996 and 1997?
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Institution -------------------------
1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado State University..................... $79,999 ...........
Montana State University...................... 59,941 ...........
Texas A&M University.......................... 159,893 ...........
Utah State University......................... 151,702 ...........
-------------------------
Subtotal, Grants........................ 451,535 \1\ $449,23
1
SBIR.......................................... 9,215 11,519
Biotechnology Risk Assessment................. 0 0
Federal Administration........................ 14,250 14,250
-------------------------
Total................................... 475,000 475,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal Year 1997 awards have not been made, but should be awarded in
mid July.
Mr. Skeen. Your budget proposal for FY 1998 proposes to terminate
this program. Yet, at the same time, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service is implementing a grazing land initiative. How do you reconcile
this seeming incongruity?
Response. The Agricultural Research Service also conducts rangeland
research. Our sense is that we can provide continuity in this area by
fully utilizing the scope of programs within our mission area.
Moreover, CSREES already has the Department's delegated authority for
education and extension activities, and we anticipate providing such
services in cooperation with NRCS on the grazing lands initiative as
well as other conservation programs.
[Clerk's note.--It is obvious from the response that the
agency is unable to answer the question.]
alternative crops
Mr. Skeen. The budget proposes to eliminate funding for canola and
hesperaloe and, instead, provides a $650,000 program for advanced
materials. How will this program work? Will the grants be awarded
competitively? Will they be earmarked for specific projects?
Response. Funding for research and development would be focused on
industrial crops. Funding would be provided for a comprehensive program
including agronomics, materials characterization, and product
development/marketing, as required, for the crops that are selected.
The choice of crops for industrial product development would be based
on the potential for collaboration and leveraging with other agencies
such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy and
those agencies' level of activity in relevant materials science,
technology, and/or product usage. Grants would be awarded competitively
and administered as cooperative agreements that require cost sharing
and allow maximum participation of the USDA departmental
representative, as appropriate. Awards would be made on a competitive
basis.
crambe/rapeseed
Mr. Skeen. Would you please describe for the Committee the work
being carried out on crambe and rapeseed under the Alternative Crops
Program for fiscal years 1996 and 1997?
Response. Crambe/rapeseed was not funded in fiscal years 1996 and
1997, and all research conducted under the Alternative Crops Program
has been completed.
Mr. Skeen. Please list the locations where this work is carried
out, including the funding levels for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Response. No funding was appropriated in fiscal years 1996 and
1997. A draft final report has been prepared by the Department of
Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri.
canola
Mr. Skeen. Would you please describe for the Committee the work
being carried out on canola under the Alternative Crops Program for
fiscal year 1996?
Response. Canola is an edible oilseed crop that is currently grown
extensively in Canada. Canola oil is lower in saturated fat than any
other commercially available food-grade vegetable oil and also
addresses environmental concerns when used in industrial lubricant
formulations; hence the market demand is increasing rapidly for both
food and non-food products. Funding is provided to establish increased
acreage in the U.S. which is approaching a total of 500,000 acres.
Research is focused on expanding and improving production practices for
six regions across the country.
Mr. Skeen. Please list the locations where this work is carried
out, including the funding by location.
Response. Funding for canola research was provided to the six
universities which head the six regions. Proposals were submitted to
the regional committees made up of the states represented by each
institution, and awards were made based on expertise and budget to
address agronomic issues relevant to the region. Each region is
represented at the following institutions:
University of Arkansas........................................ $78,813
University of Georgia......................................... 78,812
University of Montana......................................... 78,813
Southern Illinois University.................................. 78,813
Kansas State University....................................... 78,812
North Dakota State University................................. 78,812
hesperaloe
Mr. Skeen. Would you please describe for the Committee the work
being carried out on hesperaloe under the Alternative Crops Program in
fiscal year 1996?
Response. Hesperaloe is a fiber crop that offers a domestically
produced source of hard fibers currently processed from abaca, sisal,
and other imported tropical crops. Research continues on agronomics,
commercial-scale stand establishment and optimization of harvest and
processing equipment. The process of obtaining herbicide registration
for Hesperaloe has begun. Product development is currently being
conducted by a commercial specialty paper company.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work carried out?
Response. This research is conducted at the University of Arizona.
rural development centers
Mr. Skeen. How much in state, local, and private funding have the
centers been able to generate?
Response. Non-federal funds available to the Regional Centers for
Rural Development were: fiscal year 1991, $1,117,000; fiscal year 1992,
$790,000; fiscal year 1993, $900,000; fiscal year 1994, $776,591; and
fiscal year 1995, $710,050; for a collective total of $4,293,641 across
the five years for which there are complete data.
sustainable agriculture research and education program
Mr. Skeen. How were the funds for the Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education (SARE) Program used, by location, for fiscal
years 1995, 1996, and 1997. Include with that information a table
showing how much funding went to each SARE location.
Response. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Program and the Training Programs for Chapters 1 and 3 were used to
support research, education, and training projects recommended by the
four SARE Regional Administrative Councils and approved by CSREES.
Table 1 shows FY's 95-97 funding. Project proposals funded for FY 96
are presented in Table 2. At this time, proposals are being solicited
for review under FY 1997 guidelines. Therefore, award data for FY 1997
is not yet available.
TABLE 1.--COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE--
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1995-
1997 FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------
1995 1996 1997 \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative Agreements/Grants Chapter 1... $5,438 $6,071 ........
Cooperative Agreements/Grants Chapter 3... 2,319 2,632 ........
Agricultural in Concert Projects \1\...... 1,400 103 ........
State Training Coordination............... 609 1,232 ........
Regional Administration................... 814 828 ........
Outreach Initiatives...................... N/A N/A ........
National Initiatives...................... 456 100 ........
Federal Administration.................... 539 545 ........
-----------------------------
SARE/extension--Total............... 11,575 11,511 11,309
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Agriculture in Concert with the Environment (ACE) is a joint grant
program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
Department of Agriculture. ACE grants help farmers accomplish two key
goals: reducing risk of pollution from pesticides and soluble
fertilizers, and safeguarding environmentally sensitive areas such as
critical habitat and wetlands.
\2\ Proposals have been solicited for FY 1997. Therefore, award data are
not available for FY 1997.
TABLE 2.--FISCAL YEAR 1996 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION AND EXTENSION PROGRAM PROPOSALS
RECEIVED AND PROJECTS FUNDED BY REGION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N. East Southern N. Central Western Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposals received.......................................... 67 41 39 34 181
SARE projects funded........................................ 20 10 17 15 62
Proposals received.......................................... 103 37 144 96 380
Farmer/grant-funded......................................... 42 11 34 31 118
Extension projects received................................. 37 17 27 10 91
Extension projects funded................................... 12 9 10 10 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. Please list the four regional councils, their
membership, and their annual budgets.
Response. The FY 1996 annual budget for each region was $2,517,250.
The four regional councils and their membership, are as follows:
north central region
Name/Affiliation
John Allen, Lincoln, NE; University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Extension
1998.
Molly Bartlett, Hiram, OH; Silver Creek Farm, Private 1997.
Ben Bartlett, Chatham, MI; Upper Peninsula Experiment Station,
Administrative Council.
Gordon L. Bultena, Ames, IA; Iowa State University, Research 1997.
Birl Lowery, Madison, WI; University of Wisconsin-Madison, Research
1999.
Ron Macher, Clark, MO; Administrative Council, Private 2000.
Alan Schlegel, Tribune, KS; Kansas State University, Research 1999-
Executive, Technical Committee Liaison.
Ann Sorensen, Concord, NE; Center for Ag in the Environment, Private
1998.
Bill Wilcke, St. Paul, MN; University of Minnesota, Extension 1999.
Doug Zalesky, Rapid City, SD; West River Research & Extension Center,
Extension 1999.
Richard Leep, Chatham, MI; Michigan State University, University 1997.
Tom Guthrie, Delton, MI; Past Chair Executive Committee, Private 1997.
Jerry DeWitt, Ames, IA; Iowa State University, CSREES Chapter 3
Liaison.
Elbert Dickey, Lincoln, NE; University of Nebraska-Lincoln, NCR SARE
Extension Rep.
Adrianna Hewings, Peoria, IL; USDA/ARS, Executive 1997.
Mary J. Hanks, St. Paul, MN; Minnesota Department of Agriculture, State
Agency Executive Committee/1997.
Frederick W. Madison, Madison, WI; Wisconsin Geo. & Natural History
Survey, Adm. Council Chair Executive 1997.
Robert Myers, Washington, D.C.; USDA/CSREES.
Dave Swaim, Crawfordsville, IN; Swaim & Associates Agronomic,
Agribusiness Executive Committee/1998.
Harry Wells, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Oran Hesterman, East Lansing, MI; Michigan State University,
Foundation.
Donald Pettit, Madison, WI; Natural Resources Conservation Service.
northeast region
Name/affiliation
Obie Ashford, Chester, PA; NE National Tech Center-NRCS.
Herbert Cole, University Park, PA; Pennsylvania State University.
Richard Conklin, Fort Ann, New York; Farmer.
E. Demisle, Princess Anne, MD; University of Maryland-Eastern Shore.
William Doepkens, Gambrills, MD; Farmer.
Julia Freedgood, Northampton, MA; American Farmland Trust.
Elizabeth Henderson, Rose, New York; Farmer.
Samuel Kaymen, Londonderry, NH; Farmer.
Charles Kruegar, University Park, PA; Pennsylvania State University.
Fred Magdoff, Burlington, VT; University of Vermont.
Robert Myers, Washington, D.C.; USDA/CSREES.
Shanna Ratner, St. Albans, VT; Yellow Wood Assoc. Inc.
Eero Ruutila, Wilton, NH; Farmer.
Neill Schaller, Greenbelt, MD; Henry A. Wallace Inst.
Frank Green, Philadelphia, PA; USDA/ARS.
David Smith, Ithaca, NY; Cornell University.
Jon Turmal, Montpelier, VT; Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food and
Marketing.
Eric Vowinkel, West Trenton, NJ; U.S. Geological Survey.
Harry Wells, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
southern region
Name/affiliation
Adell Brown, Baton Rouge, LA; Southern University.
D.C. Coston, Stillwater, OK; Agricultural Experiment Station, Oklahoma
State University.
David Foster, Little Rock, AR; Cooperative Extension.
Phil Greeson, Norcross, GA; U.S. Geological Survey.
Alex Hitt, Graham, NC; Farmer/Producer.
James Horne, Poteau, OK; Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture.
Larry Jeffries, New Castle, KY; Farmer.
Steve Carmichael, Atlanta, GA; NRCS/EPA, Liaison.
Byrce Malone, Baton Rouge, LA; Louisiana Dept. of Agriculture &
Forestry.
Lorna McMahon, Tiptonville, TN; Agribusiness.
Robert L. Myers, Washington, D.C.; USDA/CSREES.
Andy Clark, Beltsville, MD; National Agriculture Library.
Charles A. Onstad, College Station, TX; USDA/ARS.
Oscar P. Butler, Orangeburg, SC; South Carolina State University.
Jerry Pennick, Atlanta, GA; Federation of Southern Cooperatives.
La Rhea Pepper, O'Donnell, TX; Agribusiness, Organic Cotton Growers.
Tom Trantham, Pelzer, SC; Farmer/Producer.
Gene Turpin, Lebanon, KY; Farmer.
Donald Voth, Fayetteville, AR; University of Arkansas.
Harry Wells, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Kim Kroll, College Park, MD; Sustainable Agriculture Programs.
David Nelson, Afton, MN; Nelson, Whiteford & Associates.
western region
Name/affiliation
Jerry DeWitt, Ames, Iowa; Iowa State University.
Jim Dyer, Carbondale, CO; Dyer Environmental Consulting.
Robert D. Heil, Ft. Collins, CO; Colorado State University.
Valerie J. Kelly, Portland, OR; U.S. Geological Survey.
Robert Myers, Washington, D.C.; USDA/CREES.
Ralph Nave, Albany, CA; USDA/ARS.
Jerry Schickendanz, Las Cruces, NM; New Mexico State University.
Larry Thompson, Boring, OR; Thompson Farms.
Harry Wells, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Wilbur Wuertz, Coolidge, AZ; Rancher.
Ray Bernal, Tucson, AZ; Grower/Agribusiness, Native American/Nations.
Dennis Teranishi, Honolulu, HI; Ag Consultant/Organic Agribusiness,
Pacific Islands.
Kai Siedenburg, Santa Cruz, CA; California Sustainable Ag. Working
Group.
Mike Somerville, Portland, OR; State Conservationist, NRCS.
Mr. Skeen. Please list the administrative or overhead costs of each
regional council.
Response. The administrative overhead for the SARE programs for FY
96 are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries Benefits Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SARE Chapter 1:
North Central Region.............. $84,986 $19,344 $104,330
Northeastern Region............... 83,755 31,373 115,128
Southern Region................... 114,581 32,949 147,530
Western Region.................... 123,507 46,933 170,440
Extension Chapter 3:
North Central Region.............. 50,462 16,009 66,471
Northeastern Region............... 54,243 18,210 72,453
Southern Region................... 32,766 7,185 39,951
Western Region.................... 77,128 17,564 94,692
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. Please provide for the record the USDA funds related to
sustainable agriculture, by agency, for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
1998.
[The information follows:]
[Page 254--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
small business innovation research program
Mr. Skeen. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
was designed to strengthen the role of small innovation firms in
federally funded research and development. What is the criteria used to
define a small business?
Response. The criteria used to define a small business for purposes
of eligibility to the SBIR program are that the business (1) is
organized for profit and independently owned or operated, (2) has its
principal place of business located in the United States and is at
least 51 percent owned, or in case of a publicly-owned business, at
least 51 percent of its voting stock is owned, by United States
citizens or lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, (3) has a
number of employees not exceeding 500, including full-time, part-time,
temporary, or other, in all affiliated concerns owned or controlled by
a single parent concerns, and (4) meets all other regulatory
requirements outlined in 13 CFR Part 121.
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please provide a table that shows the
amount of funding for each of the past three years for the Small
Business Innovation Research Program.
[The information follows:]
Total Funding for the Small Business Innovation Research Program
Fiscal year 1995..............................................$9,289,107
Fiscal year 1996.............................................. 9,058,554
Fiscal year 1997..............................................10,941,752
Mr. Skeen. How much is set-aside from ARS for this program?
Response. The total amount of funds that are set-aside for ARS for
the Small Business Innovation Research Program for the past three years
are: $671,960 in fiscal year 1995; $805,000 in fiscal year 1996; and
$753,000 in fiscal year 1997.
native american institutions endowment fund
Mr. Skeen. Last year the Congress provided $4.6 million for the
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund. What interest rate are
these funds earning in fiscal year 1997 and how have funds been
distributed to universities to date?
Response. The current interest rate for the endowment fund is 6.88
percent. Interest earned on the funds invested in FY 1996 has been
distributed as follows:
Institution Amount
Bay Mills Community College, MI......................... $2,657.68
Blackfeet Community College, MT......................... 4,143.10
Cheyenne River Community College, SD.................... 2,493.92
College of Menominee Nation, WI......................... 2,592.56
Crownpoint Institute of Technology, NM.................. 2,973.59
D-Q University, CA...................................... 2,501.66
Dull Knife Memorial College, MT......................... 2,428.80
Fond du Lac Community College, MT....................... 1,867.26
Fort Belknap College, MT................................ 2,668.64
Fort Berthold Community College, ND..................... 2,586.76
Fort Peck Community College, MT......................... 3,610.57
Haskell Indian Nations University, MT................... 6,648.46
Institute of American Indian Arts, NM................... 2,573.86
Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College, WI........ 3,529.33
Leech Lake Tribal College, NM........................... 2,430.09
Little Big Horn College, MT............................. 3,238.57
Little Hoop Community College, ND....................... 2,293.41
Navajo Community College, AZ............................ 13,123.34
Nebraska Indian Community College, NE................... 2,738.33
Northwest Indian College, WA............................ 5,137.90
Oglala Lakota College, SD............................... 5,886.41
Salish Kootenai College, MT............................. 6,296.45
Sinte Gleska University, SD............................. 4,990.26
Sisseton Wahpeton Community College, SD................. 2,409.46
Sitting Bull College, ND................................ 2,916.14
Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute, NM.............. 5,436.40
Stone Child Community College, MT....................... 3,139.92
Turtle Mountain Community College, ND................... 4,669.19
United Tribes Technical College, ND..................... 3,134.77
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Payments to Institutions...................... 111,116.83
Administration...................................... 4,629.87
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Grand total................................... 115,746.87
========================================================
____________________________________________________
usda-hispanic education partnership grants program
Mr. Skeen. For the record, provide a list showing which
universities and how much each received from this account.
Response. The Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grants
Program is a new program for fiscal year 1997. The deadline for receipt
of applications was March 17, 1997. The peer review panel meeting is
scheduled for the week of June 2-6 and awards will be announced by
September 1, 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Are institutions required to cost share or match funds
under this program?
Response. No. The Department encourages, but does not require,
matching funds from non-Federal sources for this program.
capacity building program
Mr. Skeen. How many students were supported by the Capacity
Building Program in fiscal year 1996? How many are anticipated in
fiscal year 1997?
Response. In fiscal year 1996, 155 students were supported by this
program. Funding decisions for fiscal year 1997, have not yet been
made. Proposals have been requested and awards should be made by the
end of July 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Provide a breakout for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997
of how much was spent in direct support of students and how much was
spent on scientific instrumentation purchases.
Response. In fiscal year 1995, direct support of students provided
through 1890 Institutions via the Capacity Program was $525,563. In
fiscal year 1996, it was $532,886. Scientific instrumentation purchases
totaled $1,353,211 in fiscal year 1995, and $1,726,080 in fiscal year
1996. Fiscal year 1997 decisions have not yet been made.
Mr. Skeen. How many students are now working in the field of food
and agriculture science and business?
Response. Employment is currently estimated at 2,008,245 for
graduates with bachelors, masters, doctorate, and first professional
degrees in the food and agricultural sciences and closely allied
fields. Employment is projected to increase to 2,112,816 by the year
2000. These employment opportunities include workers in 84 occupations
throughout 129 industries. The largest clusters of jobs by
specialization are in agricultural production; science and engineering;
and marketing, merchandising, and sales.
higher education
Mr. Skeen. How many doctoral students and masters fellows are being
supported with the $33,500,000 provided for fiscal year 1996.
Response. The fiscal year 1996 National Needs Graduate Fellowship
Grants Program is supporting the recruitment and three years of
education for 64 doctoral fellows at 20 institutions in 19 states.
Funds were not sufficient to allow for support of masters fellowships.
Mr. Skeen. How many applications for the challenge grants have you
received in fiscal year 1997.
Response. A total of 117 applications have been received for the
fiscal year 1997 competition.
pesticide impact assessment program
Mr. Skeen. The National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program was established in 1976 as a cooperative state-Federal effort.
How much has been spent to date in the program in both Federal and
state funds?
Response. Under the CSREES National Agricultural Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program--NAPIAP, Federal funds have been appropriated as
follows: Fiscal years 1977 through 1981, $1,810,000 per year; fiscal
years 1982 through 1985 $2,069,000 per year; fiscal years 1986 through
1988 $1,968,000 per year; fiscal year 1989, $2,218,000; fiscal year
1990, $2,437,000; fiscal years 1991 through 1993, $2,968,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $1,474,000; and fiscal years 1995 through 1997,
$1,327,000 per year. Total appropriations to date are $42,244,000. The
exact contribution of each state has not been reported. The Federal
program funds provided by CSREES have been used by the states to
partially defray their costs of staffing a Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program State Liaison Representative. The remainder of those costs,
which include salaries, facilities, clerical support, and supplies, are
borne by the states. State estimates of their contributions to this
program have ranged from 3 to 6 times the Federal dollars that have
been provided.
Mr. Skeen. What has been accomplished to date through this program?
Response. Research conducted under NAPIAP discovers, gathers,
publishes, and distributes information relating to the use and
effectiveness of pest management alternatives essential to the
maintenance of U.S. agricultural crops and livestock production. These
data involve valuating the biologic and economic impact and
consequences of restricting the use of key pesticides either through
voluntary cancellations or regulatory action. NAPIAP data augments data
compiled by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service--NASS--by
conducting commodity-based assessments on minor or small acreage crops.
To insure that there is no duplication of effort, NAPIAP coordinates
information collection with NASS and concentrates its pest management
inquiring on commodities not surveyed by NASS. NAPIAP has been an on-
going research effort whose original goal in 1977 was to gather data to
provide comprehensive assessments documenting what would be the impact
on agriculture if certain pesticides would no longer be available. A
Federally-coordinated network of state scientist contacts was developed
in the intervening years as broader and more environmentally-
enlightened goals evolved within this program. Today, the NAPIAP goals
are defined in its strategic plan as: in collaboration with USDA, EPA,
and land-grant partners, to focus activities on collecting and
delivering high quality, science-based pest management information for
use in the regulatory process; and maintain and enhance a strong
partnership between USDA and the land-grant system to continue the
interactive flow of vital pest management information between USDA, the
regulatory community, and production agriculture.
Mr. Skeen. Assessment information on benefits of pest control
agents are made available through the program. How is this information
disseminated? Who are the recipients of this information? Is this
information distributed on a request basis only?
Response. The National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program--NAPIAP--distributes unsolicited copies of its assessment
reports to the State Liaison Representative in each state/territory,
members of the NAPIAP Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and to appropriate commodity groups. Summaries of these reports are
disseminated to approximately 2,000 recipients of the Re-registration
Notification Network newsletter, which includes an address to request a
complete report. Request for copies of complete reports are filled by
the Pesticide Impact Assessment Program staff. Printed copies of each
study are submitted to the National Agriculture Library for cataloging
and shelving. Assessment of broad interest, such as the Corn and
Soybean assessment and the Phenoxy Herbicide assessment, are mounted as
complete documents on the World War Web making them available to
scientist and other throughout the world.
improved pest control
Mr. Skeen. For each of the items covered under the improved pest
control program, please provide a breakout of each item and where the
funds for each was spent in fiscal year 1996, and 1997.
Response. The following tables provide a breakout of the Improved
Pest Control Program for funds awarded in FY 96 and FY 97. Funds
awarded in FY 97 are year-to-date since all awards have not been made.
[Pages 258 - 260--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Skeen. The budget request includes significant increases for
most of these projects. What will you do differently with these funds?
Response. New funding is needed to move forward with several new
and expanded team-based, multidisciplinary field research projects.
Research will focus on implementation of biologically-based Integrated
Pest Management--IPM--in regions where tough pest problems continue to
cause major losses to growers, threaten the competitiveness of U.S.
food industries, and pose unacceptable risks to the environment and
workers.
These IPM projects will be carried out through a participatory
process that has involved more than 4,000 farmers around the country
since 1994. Grower-interest in IPM is at an all-time high. More than 70
organizations are now participating in the Environmental Protection
Agency's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program, and this number
continues to grow. We are requesting this new funding so that we can
expand research and education activities needed to address the science
and technology issues that will emerge as growers progress along the
IPM continuum toward more biologically-based IPM systems. Such issues
might include: The incorporation of newly developed technologies, such
as transgenic plants and variable rate technology, into IPM systems;
the development and dissemination of efficient monitoring technologies
and decision support systems, including economic thresholds;
assessments of the economic and environmental impacts of IPM practices
and systems; refinement of cropping systems to minimize pest abundance;
and the development and implementation of pest management alternatives,
including new biological control approaches and techniques.
The need for this new effort is perhaps greatest in a number of
high-value fruit and vegetable crops that are likely to be impacted
significantly by implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996. Based on the timetable for implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act, growers will need practical, proven alternatives to
several important pesticides within the next four or five years. For
this reason, the Department feels that it is imperative to increase
investments in IPM research and extension education activities.
The request for increases in funding for the IR-4 program will help
expedite the registration process by accelerating the development of
field residue chemistry and environmental fate data for a large number
of safer, reduced risk biopesticides moving through EPA registration
channels. For the foreseeable future, many farmers will continue to
rely on access to both synthetic and biopesticides to save crops in
situations where biointensive IPM systems do not work as intended.
Expanding the supply of reduced risk biopesticides will keep farming
operations profitable, while also greatly reducing the risks of
pesticide use.
[Pages 262 - 263--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
peer panels
Mr. Skeen. How much did CSREES pay out in honoraria and travel for
peer panels in fiscal year 1996? What is the budget for fiscal year
1997?
Response. In fiscal year 1996, honoraria costs were $188,100 and
travel costs were $520,124. In fiscal year 1997, estimated costs for
honoraria and travel are $281,000 and $773,000 respectively. Fiscal
year 1997 is the first year to the Fund for Rural America, and peer
panel costs reflect this new program.
buildings and facilities
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please provide a list of all projects
and tell us the status of each, including the amount that has been
appropriated to date and the amount of Federal funds needed to complete
the project. This list should include all feasibility studies as well.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 265 - 268--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
extension activities
Mr. Skeen. How many Extension agents are currently located at the
state and county levels?
Response. There are approximately 9,543 County Agent positions
within a total of 16,993 Extension personnel. Aside from including
agent positions, the total also includes specialists and support staff.
Mr. Skeen. In last year's hearing record you provided a table
showing the total Extension funding, by state, for fiscal year 1995.
Would you please provide this same information for fiscal year 1996.
[The information follows:]
[Page 270--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
integrated pest management
Mr. Skeen. The Administration has set a goal for implementation of
Integrated Pest Management, IPM, on 75 percent of crop acres by the
year 2000. What percentage of crop acres are currently under IPM? Give
us a status report on this initiative.
Response. Much work has been done over the last year, both inside
USDA and in the private sector, to refine the methodology used to
measure IPM adoption. Consensus has emerged that IPM systems exist
along a continuum, much like the one set forth by the Department in the
1994 report Adoption of Integrated Pest Management in the United
States, which was published by the Economic Research Service. This
report concluded that about one-half the nation's crop acreage is now
under IPM, and that the level of implementation depends on the crop,
the region, and the pest problem. The goal of the National IPM
Initiative is to increase the number of farmers using basic levels of
IPM and to help IPM-users progress along the IPM continuum
incrementally toward biologically based IPM systems.
Measuring IPM adoption along the continuum is a complex and
resource-intensive task. The Department's National Agricultural
Statistics Service is currently conducting national surveys of major
field crops and selected fruits and vegetables to measure levels of IPM
adoption, and the results of the first of these surveys will be
available in early 1998. Much more work is needed to refine and
implement a sound measurement methodology. Since the ERS report was
published in 1994, additional studies have been completed by Department
analysts and outside experts, and most support ERS' conclusion that 50
percent or more of the nation's crop acreage is currently managed under
at least a ``low'' level of IPM. However, several analyses, including
the one published by Consumers Union in Pest Management at the
Crossroads, have concluded that the 75 percent adoption goal has nearly
been achieved in many crops if ``low'' level IPM is counted, but that
considerable more work is needed to meet the goal if only acres in the
``medium'' and ``high'' zones along the IPM continuum are counted. We
believe that an accelerated effort is needed, and warranted, to help
growers move incrementally along the IPM continuum, thereby reducing
reliance on high-risk pesticides and enhancing the sustainability of
farm operations. Additional work is also needed to refine and apply
measurement methodologies.
Mr. Skeen. Pest Management consists of two components, integrated
pest management and cotton pest management. Cotton pest management
focuses on cotton insects and is an earmarked program in 11 states. How
much was provided for cotton pest management activities in fiscal years
1995 and 1996 and how was this funding used? What are the estimates for
fiscal year 1997?
Response. A separate IPM program for cotton is needed because of
the severity of yield losses caused by the boll weevil and other cotton
pests and the tremendous economic impact of these losses to rural
communities in the South. The severity of losses caused by cotton pests
may result in extremely high rates of pesticide use if conventional
pest management practices are used. Funding for this program has
remained level at $1,464,000 for fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1997, and
is allocated to 11 cotton producing States by a formula. The formula
distributes the funds on the basis of National Cotton Council
statistics on planted cotton acreage with 4.5 percent or more losses
due to boll weevil infestation, value and location of losses caused by
the boll weevil in 1974, and the percent of total U.S. cotton
production based on 1973 crop data. The Cotton Pest Management Program
permits Cooperative Extension to develop and deliver education programs
to cotton growers, grower organizations, private consultants, and other
end-users. There are many successful outcomes attributable to this
investment of public resources. For example, the fiscal year 1996
annual report indicates an insecticide resistance monitoring program
conducted by Louisiana State University and the Cooperative Extension
Service resulted in a reduction of pesticide use that saved Louisiana
cotton farmers as much as $45 per acre. The fiscal year 1996
Mississippi annual report indicates the cotton IPM program conducted by
the Cooperative Extension Service is estimated to have saved growers
$40 per acre in reduced control costs while increasing yields by $50
per acre. In Texas, Cooperative Extension has helped Williamson County
cotton growers implement a series of biointensive IPM practices to
increase net profits by $8 per acre, for a county-wide net economic
impact of $216,626 in 1995.
pesticide applicator training
Mr. Skeen. Since the mid-1970's the Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA, has been providing USDA with funding for the Pesticide
Applicator Training program. In fiscal year 1995 you received
$2,080,000 for the program and an additional $575,000 for special
projects. How much did USDA receive in fiscal year 1996? Do you
anticipate receiving any funds in fiscal year 1997?
Response. In fiscal year 1996, USDA received $1,500,000 for the
program and an additional $178,000 for special projects. We expect to
receive $1,700,000 from EPA in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. You state in the budget justifications that EPA is
making a joint request for a funding increase in its budget for the
Pesticide Applicator Training program. What is the EPA funding level
for this program in fiscal year 1997 and what is the budget request for
fiscal year 1998?
Response. In fiscal years 1997 and 1998 the EPA budget contains
$1.88 million for the Pesticide Applicator Training Program.
pesticide impact assessment program
Mr. Skeen. How much of the pesticide impact assessment funding is
awarded competitively and how much is distributed on a formula basis?
Response. In fiscal year 1996, $3.0 million were allocated on a
formula basis to the states/territories to provide partial support for
their participation in the National Pesticide Impact Assessment
program. The PIA allocation funding is distributed through a non-
competitive process according to an algorithm based upon each state's
proportion of number of farms, farm sales plus on-farm use value,
pesticide sales, and minor crop production. The Pesticide Impact
Assessment program also provided $250,000 to each of four regions, for
a total of $1.0 million, for regional competitive grants programs to
collect benefit related data which can be used by the Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs to make informed re-
registration decisions regarding agricultural pesticides.
agrability
Mr. Skeen. How many requests for AgrAbility projects did you
receive and how many did you fund in fiscal year 1996? How many
requests have you received to date this fiscal year?
Response. There were 20 requests for funding in fiscal year 1996,
and we funded 19 AgrAbility projects. There was no request for new
state or regional projects in fiscal year 1996. This fiscal year we
received 14 applications to continue projects that are eligible for
renewal and 16 applications for new projects. We requested applications
for new projects this fiscal year and will be able to fund four new
projects.
food safety initiative
Mr. Skeen. In fiscal year 1996, Congress provided $2,438,000 for
the food safety initiative. Competitive awards were to be disbursed in
July 1996. This is ten months after the start of the fiscal year. Why
does it take so long to disburse these funds?
Response. Since the inception of the Food Safety and Quality
Initiative Program, awards have been made in July. Proposal
applications are received in April, applications are reviewed by panels
in May, awards are announced in June, and funds are allocated in July.
Mr. Skeen. How much of this funding was made available to states on
a project proposal basis? How many proposals were funded with this
amount? What were these proposals?
Response. Of the $2,438,000 Congress provided for the food safety
initiative in fiscal year 1996, $2,242,960 were made available to
states on a project proposal basis. A total of 63 projects were funded.
A list of the funded projects follows:
[Pages 274 - 276--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
sustainable agriculture research and education program
Mr. Skeen. How many sustainable agriculture projects were funded
through the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program in
fiscal year 1996? How many are planned for fiscal year 1997?
Response. In fiscal year 1996 the Sustainable Agriculture Research
and Education Program funded 221 projects out of 883 proposals
submitted. In FY 1997, the number of projects funded will be based on
the quality of proposals submitted. Proposals are merit-reviewed, and
only the highest quality proposals are funded.
youth at risk program
Mr. Skeen. How many programs and projects were funded under the
Youth-at-Risk program in 1996, and how many are proposed to be funded
in 1997?
Response. In fiscal year 1996, 63 projects were funded under the
Children, Youth and Families at Risk Program. These projects fall under
competitive categories that include Youth at Risk, Children, Youth and
Family Networks and State Strengthening Projects. Forty-seven of the 63
projects funded were renewals of projects awarded competitively in
fiscal year 1992 through 1995.
Of the 50 projects proposed for funding in fiscal year 1997, 38 are
renewals of projects that were funded in fiscal years 1993 through
1996.
Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 350 of last
year's hearing record showing the funding levels for each of the
Centers that support programs for at-risk youth and families to include
fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Response. The following table indicates the funding levels for each
Center or Network.
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILY NETWORKS FUNDED BY CSREES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Non- Federal Non- Partner
Network 1996 federal 1997 federal universities Fiscal manager
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Care......................... $175,000 $52,500 $175,000 $52,500 14 Kansas State
University.
Science & Technology............... 175,000 52,500 175,000 52,500 12 Michigan State
University.
Family Resiliency.................. 175,000 52,500 175,000 52,500 40 Iowa State
University.
Health............................. 175,000 52,500 175,000 52,500 29 North Carolina
State University.
Collaboration...................... 175,000 52,500 200,000 60,000 21 Ohio State
University.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. You are requesting an increase of $2,146,000 for the
Youth-At-Risk program of which $1,700,000 will be earmarked for the
1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee University. Describe in further
detail how this money will be used.
Response. Since 1991, USDA has received an annual Congressional
appropriation to expand Extension programs to reach at-risk children
and families. Through this Children, Youth, and Families at Risk
Initiative, the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service has supported community-based projects in over 400 communities
in 49 states and 3 territories. County Extension staff have formed
collaborations with other community agencies and with citizens to
create programs that meet critical needs of children and families.
This Children, Youth and Families at Risk appropriation has been
distributed through a competitive application and review process to
Cooperative Extension Services in 1862 Land-Grant Universities. Since
only 1862 Land-Grant Universities have been eligible to apply, they
were urged to partner with 1890 Universities. Changes in the 1996 Farm
Bill allow 1890 institutions to apply for these programs--if there is
new or increased funding over the FY 1995 level. The funding will be
awarded via the competitive peer review process.
Increasing the appropriation and, thus, opening the Children,
Youth, and Families at Risk Initiative to 1890 Universities, would
provide them the opportunity to support community-based programs for
children, youth and families at risk. 1890 Universities will benefit
from State Strengthening Projects which include funding for statewide
staff development; for direct funding to community programs designed to
address needs identified by youth and adult citizens; and for training
and technical assistance to community programs. State Strengthening
Projects include funding for electronic connectivity to provide
computers, software, Internet connections, and technology training for
staff as well as youth and adult participants in community programs.
This electronic connectivity could insure active involvement of the
1890 universities in collaborative sharing of research and educational
resources of the Children, Youth and Family Networks also funded by
this initiative.
With Children, Youth and Families at Risk funding for 1890
Universities, educational resources of the entire University Extension
System could be made available to people and communities least likely
to have access. 1890 universities would be able to support prevention
education programs to met critical needs of children and families. Some
types of programs would include drug and alcohol prevention, computer
literacy, teen pregnancy, child abuse, job training, parent education,
prenatal care education, new parent support, family financial planning,
and career counseling.
efnep
Mr. Skeen. What percent of the total EFNEP funds are devoted to
families on food stamps, the WIC program, or other federal food
assistance programs?
Response. Approximately 80 percent of the Federal funds are used to
support programs for the adult food preparer, and 20 percent are used
to support youth programming. We do not gather data on participation in
food assistance programs from youth, but the majority are low income
youth who are eligible for free or reduced price school meals and whose
families are likely to be receiving Food Stamps and/or Women, Infants,
or Children--WIC--benefits.
For the adult participants, 61 percent are receiving Food Stamps,
51 percent receive WIC benefits, 28 percent receive Child Nutrition
benefits, 13 percent receive The Emergency Food Assistant Program, and
1 percent receive Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations.
Families may participate in more than one program. Only 13 percent are
not receiving Federal food assistance at the time they enroll in EFNEP,
and many of these are aided by the EFNEP nutrition assistants in
accessing services for which they were eligible but not enrolled. An
additional 2 percent of the EFNEP families are able to get food stamps,
2 percent get WIC benefits, 2 percent get Child Nutrition benefits, and
3 percent access the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Overall, EFNEP
helped achieve over 27,000 new enrollments in Federal food assistance.
Mr. Skeen. All states should be using the new EFNEP Evaluation/
Reporting System to submit 1995 data. This is a comprehensive
evaluation system that will allow you to determine program impact and
effectiveness at the local level. What were the results of the 1995
data and what changes to the EFNEP program have you made as a result of
information generated by this system?
Response. The EFNEP Evaluation/Reporting System was released in
1993, and we have received our third year of data using this new
system. At the national level, this gives us a very good indication of
the success of EFNEP. For example, over 85 percent of the adult
participants improve in one or more food resource management practices,
such as planning meals, comparing prices, using grocery lists, and not
running out of food or cutting the size of children's meals because
there was not enough money to buy food. Over 90 percent of adult
participants showed improvements in one or more nutrition practices,
such as making healthy food choices, preparing foods without added
salt, reading nutrition labels for fat and sodium contents, having
children eat breakfast, and feeling that the food and nutrition needs
of their families are being met. Nearly 70 percent of adult
participants improved in one or more food safety practices related to
thawing and storing foods properly.
We were also able to measure improvements in nutrient and food
intakes that occur as a result of participants in EFNEP. The EFNEP
Evaluation/Reporting System measures the intake of six key nutrients
that are often limited in the diets of low income audiences: protein,
iron, calcium, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, and Vitamin B6. For each nutrient,
the levels at completion of the program were higher than at entry.
There were also substantial differences in the intake of foods to meet
the recommendations of the Food Guide Pyramid. At entry, only about 17
percent of participants consume a diet that provides even one-half of
the recommended numbers of servings of breads and cereals, and at least
one serving from each of the other food groups. Upon graduation, over
40 percent of the participants had achieved this minimal level of
intake.
States are using the data from the system to make program
modifications. For example, Massachusetts found the calcium intakes of
their participants were particularly low, and that the levels were not
increasing very much as a result of the educational intervention. To
address this, they held special staff development training sessions to
emphasize the importance of calcium in the diet, and also modified
lessons to highlight good sources of calcium in several lessons, rather
than just covering the topic in one lesson. These changes resulted in
an improvement in the calcium intakes in participants.
Other states use the data from the system to measure case loads and
effectiveness of the nutrition assistants. It becomes part of the
performance evaluation, by helping to identify staff that are
outstanding, and those who may need more training or supervision. It
can also be used to compare several curricula, delivery modes or target
audiences, allowing for programming changes to meet customer needs.
At the national level, we have heard from the states that they
would like to be able to use the system to measure impacts of programs
such as the programs, funded under the Food Stamp Family Nutrition
Program. As a result, we will soon be releasing an upgraded version of
the software that will measure perinatal impacts, such as birth weight
and days of hospitalization, breastfeeding initiation and duration, and
similar impacts, and will offer streamlined capabilities for creating
reports on subgroups, such as pregnant teens or food stamp
participants. Modifications to the behavior checklist will allow states
to ask up to 15 additional questions for selected populations, to
capture additional impact data. The system has been pilot tested in a
variety of settings and has been found useful for many different
nutrition education programs conducted by the Cooperative Extension
System.
rural development centers
Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 352 of last
year's hearing record, indicating how each of The Rural Development
Centers allocated their funds, to include fiscal year 1997.
Response. The Rural Development Centers have allocated their funds
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Central Regional Rural
Development--Iowa State University:
Personnel....................... 90,250 111,834 124,796
Travel and subsistence.......... 6,000 8,000 10,932
Publications and educational
materials...................... 18,000 14,200 29,140
Current expenses (supplies,
eqpt).......................... 1,040 1,190 0
Subcontracts and agreements with
other institutions............. 74,000 50,000 14,980
-----------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 189,290 185,224 179,848
North Dakota Institute for Business
and Industry Development--North
Dakota State University:
Personnel....................... 182,400 185,224 179,848
-----------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 182,400 185,224 179,848
Northeast Regional Center for Rural
Development--Pennsylvania State
University:
Personnel....................... 79,236 82,987 94,845
Travel.......................... 16,000 16,000 20,000
Equipment and supplies.......... 9,918 9,237 5,003
Center-funded projects.......... 65,136 60,000 50,000
Publication/printing costs...... 19,000 17,000 10,000
-----------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 189,290 185,224 179,848
Southern Rural Development Center--
Mississippi State University:
Personnel....................... 104,810 105,043 58,553
Travel.......................... 25,567 17,109 16,628
Other (fringe benefits)......... 24,259 26,261 14,291
Material and supplies........... 0 9,273 10,202
Contractual..................... 34,654 27,538 80,174
-----------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 189,290 185,224 179,848
Western Rural Development Center--
Oregon State University:
Personnel....................... 118,911 138,673 114,125
Travel (staff).................. 36,279 24,000 14,093
Office expenses and publications 27,100 21,801 10,000
Equipment and other expenses.... 0 0 12,000
Other operating expenses (seed,
CAP, and ACT).................. 7,000 750 29,630
-----------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 189,290 185,224 179,848
Payments to States amount....... 939,560 926,120 899,240
Federal Administration amount... 10,440 9,880 8,760
-----------------------------------
Total appropriation........... 950,000 936,000 908,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. Also provide a table that shows the amount of non-
Federal funding available to the Centers since fiscal year 1991.
Response. Non-Federal funding available to Centers from fiscal year
1991 to the present is as follows:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE
Rural Development Centers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Central Regional Center for Rural Development..... $556,611
North Dakota Institute for Business and Industry
Development............................................ 0
Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development......... 1,400,940
Southern Rural Development Center....................... 1,525,000
Western Rural Development Center........................ 1,194,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. I read in the explanatory notes that these funds are
distributed according to the extent of the problem that requires
attention in each state. How is this determined?
Response. Funds are distributed from the Southern Rural Development
Center based on input from the Program Advisory Committee and are
approved by the Southern rural Development Center Board of Directors.
The Program Advisory Committee is a committee made up of
representatives from the 29 Land-Grant institutions served by the
Center and from private partners. The Program Advisory Committee
identifies needed areas of research and education across the region,
and the Center manages the funding of specific projects of regional
importance; support activities and dissemination of information of
regional importance; and coordinates various pools of people and money
to best address activities of regional importance. The process is a
very coordinated, collaborative, and multi-faceted plan of work.
The North Central Regional Center for Rural Development distributes
funds based on regional opportunities for rural development. The Board
of Directors which meets twice a year and communicates regularly,
decides on the priorities of the North Central Center for Rural
Development. The Board comes from the private and public sector. Once
those priorities are determined, in light of strategic plans and its
updated goals, the center receives requests for funding. Major grants
are through a refereed request for proposal process. Smaller grants for
travel and research are based on the degree to which the proposed
activity meets the criteria of: (1) multistate, (2) linking research
and action and (3) multidisciplinary.
The Northeast Regional Center sub-contracts are awarded according
to the following procedures:
(a) Must be multi-state and multi-disciplinary as other funding
sources are available for single state disciplinary efforts.
(b) Feedback from the Center's Technical Advisory Committee and the
Board of Directors are factored into the priority areas for soliciting
pre-proposals. This feedback is enriched via monthly conference with
the community resource development research and extension state
contacts and the executive directors of the State Rural Development
Councils. Finally, site visits are scheduled by the Center staff to
each of the 15 host land-grant institutions on a biennial basis to
complete the salient issue environmental scan with administrators and
university and field based faculties.
Funds are distributed from the Western Rural Development Center
based on input from the Western Rural Development Center Advisory
Committee and approved by the Western Rural Development Center Board of
Directors. The Advisory Committee is made up of representatives from
the 17 Land-Grant institutions served by the Center and representatives
from private partners. The Western Rural Development Center Advisory
Committee identified needed areas of research and education across the
region, and the Center manages the funding of specific projects of
regional importance.
The process is a very coordinated, collaborative, and multi-faceted
plan of work.
The North Dakota Center for Rural Development resources are
allocated for technology transfer efforts that benefit rural
manufacturers and food and non-food agriculture processing plants and
in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership program.
4-h youth enrollment
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a ten year table that shows both rural
and urban 4-H enrollment including fiscal year 1997 estimates.
[The information follows:]
[Page 282--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
national 4-h recognition model
Mr. Skeen. Describe in further detail the newly developed National
4-H Recognition Model including how it works and the results you are
seeing.
Response. The National 4-H Recognition Model, introduced over the
past three years, provides a framework for designing appropriate
recognition for young people. States and counties utilize the model in
designing appropriate recognition for young people participating in 4-H
Youth Development educational activities. The purpose of recognition in
the 4-H Youth Development program is to encourage and support the
efforts of young people in learning to increase their knowledge and
develop their life skills. Appropriate recognition respects the
diversity of individuals and teams and is the most effective in
encouraging and supporting their development. Recognition as a strategy
for youth development affirms positive learning behaviors in youth. As
such, it is based on the youth's involvement, participation, and
efforts. It is designed to meet the needs, interests and aspirations of
young people from different backgrounds and experience. It is focused
on individual learning. It should not be influenced by such factors as
monetary resources to purchase the best materials, equipment, or
opportunities.
The National 4-H Recognition Model is useful in providing
recognition to all participants and consists of five types of
recognition. Recognition can have a significant effect on a young
person's continued involvement. When properly used, it can inspire
young people to continue to participate and learn.
Recognition of young people for participation in educational
experiences acknowledges involvement as a first step in building a
sense of belonging and accomplishment.
Recognition for progress toward personal goals enables youth to
gain experience in goal setting and realistic self assessment.
Recognition for achievement of standards of excellence gives youth
an external, predetermined target for their learning experiences.
Recognition through peer competition is a strong motivation for
some but not all young people. It is not appropriate for youth under
age eight.
Recognition for cooperation helps youth learn and work
cooperatively, preparing them for living in today's inter-dependent,
global society.
A key to the use of recognition as a strategy for youth development
is to remember that each child is an individual and has unique,
individual needs, interests, and aspirations. Recognition is one
element of the learning experience and is appropriate to the needs of
the young person, whether that form of recognition is external and
tangible or internal and inherently satisfying. The 4-H youth
development vision of recognition is that all youth will experience
positive personal growth and increased self-reliance through
encouragement and support of awide variety of learning experiences.
Recognition can give the message to young people: ``you are valuable,
competent and important'' to the program, the community and society.
Rationale
4-H is a non-formal education program whose mission is to assist
young people in realizing their full potential and develop a positive
image of themselves and their future. It is an educational program,
where young people and adults from diverse backgrounds and with diverse
experience learn as a result of interaction with and between
technology, ideas, and people.
4-H is a voluntary program where young people become involved and
stay involved for a variety of reasons: they want to be with their
friends, they want to learn something, they want to do something for
their community and they want to have fun. To meet these needs, 4-H
programs offer a wide range of interesting projects, provide numerous
activities and events, and use various forms of recognition to
encourage young people to become involved, to learn, and to continue
learning and staying involved.
Recognition becomes a strategy for youth development when we define
it as: encouragement and support for learning. It comes as a result of
participation in educational experience and is an acknowledgment and
affirmation of the personal growth of an individual. Young people are
motivated by factors operating in relation to one another and might
include: the level of curiosity; the variety of opportunities; openness
for creativity and flexibility; developmental level of challenge for
the individual; ability to choose among options; and choice of
competitive, individual, or cooperative activity. Recognition is an
appreciation of each person's effort and provides positive
reinforcement to continue participating in learning activities.
The National 4-H Recognition Model provides a framework useful in
designing recognition matches for the needs of young people.
Participation in 4-H is essentially voluntary, and young people join
because they benefit personally, not because it is a good program. They
make choices depending on their need for security, new experiences,
affirmation and affiliation. Used appropriately, recognition is
designed to meet the needs of individuals. Individual progress must be
recognized and individual enthusiasm must be encouraged. There is no
one way to encourage and support young people. They come from varied
backgrounds and with different experiences. They have individual
interests, values, needs, attitudes, and aspirations. It is important
to remember that recognition is encouragement and support for learning
and can take on different forms to meet the needs of individual young
people. For some youth intrinsic or internal recognition is a powerful
reason for them to continue to learn and grow. The feeling of
accomplishment, satisfaction, enjoyment, and competence is more
important to them than someone else's approval. This recognition comes
from inside rather than outside. Although, adults can provide the
measure of that accomplishment for the youth, helping them understand
or providing guidelines for what they are learning and doing. For other
young people, external or extrinsic recognition is important. In this
case, affirmation by others helps young people measure their
accomplishment and competence and encourages them to continue learning.
Understanding that the reasons young people continue to learn and stay
involved is a complex blend of environment, attitude and self concept.
It is what motivates them which in turn energizes them and determines
their individual actions. And is necessary to remember that appropriate
recognition is influenced by a variety of factors within the
individual, depending on where they are in a specific time in relation
to what they are doing. So one type of recognition doesn't always work
for the same individual all of the time. Youth are motivated to
participate at varying levels of challenges by reaching particular
self-selected milestones. To provide a range of opportunities to
optimize growth potential is a key to appropriate, well-balanced
recognition.
As a strategy of development, recognition has several purposes. It
can foster self-appraisal skills, providing a strong foundation for
each young person to engage in self-reflection and self-praise without
the need for external rewards. Appropriate recognition can be a
motivator for some young people to excel and take prosocial risks. It
can encourage and support the efforts of young people as they engage in
individualized learning, peer competition, or cooperation. Finally,
recognition used in all its forms can provide balance to the
recognition young people receive as they move through our educational
programs to increasingly difficult challenges.
Introduction and implementation
The National 4-H Recognition Model was developed by a design team
representing youth development, human development, state, and county
staff revising and providing further development from the model
introduced in 1985. It has been introduced to the Cooperative Extension
system using a variety of methods. An introductory publication was
widely distributed to States for sue and distribution and was used
during workshops at Regional Volunteer Leader Forums. Over the past
year, regional training was conducted for State and County staff as
well as volunteer adult and youth leaders using a training package
recommended by the national design team.
Results
Use of the model varies from state to state meeting the needs of
the youth development program and participants. Illinois has been using
a similar model since the mid-1980's and has had a great deal of
success in balancing their recognition program. Montana has been
utilizing the model and its concepts since the early 1990s and has
changed the way recognition is provided throughout the state. Both
States are providing a balanced recognition system for young people
participating in 4-H Youth Development. The outcomes of introduction of
the model has varied. Examples include the following:
(a) A change in terminology from awards and incentives to
recognition. Recognition defined as support and encouragement for
learning.
(b) Awareness of the need to balance recognition in the state
program. The Recognition Model affirms many of those aspects of the
model currently in use, while focusing on the need to have more
balance.
(c) States have set up county and/or state level recognition teams
to analyze current status and recommend and implement changes.
(d) States have changed ways of selecting young people to
participate in Regional and National activities. They are focusing on
overall learning and recognizing effort.
multicultural scholars program
Mr. Skeen. The Multi-cultural Scholars Program was established in
fiscal year 1994. Provide a table that shows, by fiscal year, the
amount of Federal and non-Federal funding provided, the number of
scholarships awarded, and the number of resulting graduates including
fiscal year 1997 estimates.
[The information follows:]
CSREES MULTICULTURAL SCHOLARS PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. No.
Fiscal year Federal Non-federal scholarships resulting
funding funding awarded graduates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994-95 \1\............................................... $1,924,160 $481,040 102 (\2\)
1996-97 \1\............................................... 1,923,000 480,750 104 ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 were combined into a single competition, as were funds for fiscal years
1996 and 1997.
\2\ It is anticipated that the first cohort of 7 students with 2-year scholarships from the combined 1994/1995
competition will graduate at the end of this academic year.
children's nutrition research center
Mr. Skeen. You have established a joint position with the
Children's Nutrition Research Center at the Baylor College of Medicine
to enhance the transfer of knowledge from the research lab to the
public in regards to nutritional needs of pregnant women, mothers,
babies, and children. What has been accomplished to date?
Response. We are very pleased with the progress made in this unique
position. The purpose of putting a national program leader in that
research facility was to strengthen the linkages between research and
education and to establish a mechanism to get the latest research out
across our system to educators and others who could then incorporate it
into their teaching and training at local and state levels. The
following are a few specific examples of accomplishments:
(a) An electronic newsletter entitled Maternal & Child Health Links
is now sent quarterly to several thousand professionals in 12
countries. The contents of the newsletter include both research
findings and educational resources. We have had great response to this
efficient means of communication.
(b) We sponsored a national meeting on the Texas Medical Center
campus in Houston titled, ``Nutrition Education for Diverse Audiences:
Research and Practice.'' This meeting provided training for educators
from 49 states and 5 territories on successful ways to work with
families from various racial/ethnic backgrounds in improving their
nutritional status. This conference was truly precedent-setting in that
it was the first time key staff from three major nutrition education
programs--the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, the
Extension Service/Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Education
Initiative, and the Food Stamp Family Nutrition Program--had ever met
to share educational resources, research results, and program impacts.
This conference illustrated the model of how we are trying to work
collaboratively and across departmental and program areas for the
benefit of the families with whom we work.
(c) We have provided leadership to land-grant universities that has
resulted in their educational materials being the most accurate and up
to date in the field reflecting the most current research findings.
(d) Additionally, CSREES works with other agencies and
organizations on the Medical Center campus.
In summary, the outcome of this partnership has been increased
visibility for all collaborators, increased audiences for research
dissemination, and stronger linkages with educators, policy makers, and
agency administrators across the country.
audit reports
Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the two open audit reports on the
University of Guam for fiscal years 1993 and 1994?
Response. These two audit reports have been closed out.
international programs
Mr. Skeen. Describe the work you are doing for AID-PASA this fiscal
year for $7.0 million.
Response. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service's Office of International Programs is responsible for
designing, implementing, and evaluating technical assistance projects
overseas. Current activities include projects in Armenia, Ukraine, and
Russia, along with a few smaller initiatives supported by funding from
the U.S. Agency for International Development--AID.
In Armenia, CSREES is working closely with the Armenian Ministry of
Food and Agriculture and newly privatized farmers to enhance
production, processing, and marketing capabilities. In 1996, an
agriculture market assistance project began to help private
entrepreneurs market high-value horticultural products. Simultaneously,
the expertise of personnel from U.S. cooperating universities was
utilized to develop the Armenian Extension Service's ability to meet
the needs of clientele at the local level. In collaboration with
California State University at Fresno, we are also assisting the
Armenian Agricultural Academy to improve its applied research,
marketing, and outreach capacity.
In October 1996, CSREES embarked on an effort to assist private
farmers in Ukraine. Two-person teams from U.S. cooperating university
systems are currently serving eight-month assignments in four regions
in Ukraine. Working in collaboration with private farmer associations,
agricultural universities and institutes, and the Ukrainian Ministry of
Agriculture, the teams are providing training in such areas as farm
management, marketing, and business planning--all aimed at helping
struggling private farmers work effectively in a market economy.
The Russian/American Farm Privatization Project near St. Petersburg
is assisting a community of farm families in making the transition to
private farm ownership. It is designed to demonstrate a relatively low-
cost approach to privatization that could be adopted by other Russian
communities with limited resources. This year the project is expanding
its reach by developing a pilot extension effort similar to the U.S.
extension system. A Farm Business Planning Center was also established
to carry out management training programs for advisors and farmers.
In addition to these major initiatives, Texas A&M University will
be managing and monitoring sustainable agricultural practices for the
U.S. Agency for International Development's mission in Honduras. CSREES
will also be assisting the Foreign Agricultural Service this year in
establishing youth development activities in sub-Saharan Africa.
Also, a team, with CSREES participation, visited South Africa as
part of the U.S.-South Africa Binational Commission. This Working
Group, a part of the Commission's Agriculture Committee, is working
with South African counterparts to develop a mutually beneficial
assistance effort.
national agricultural pesticide impact assessment
Mr. Skeen. Provide a table that shows, by agency, the amount
contributed to the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, and estimates for 1997.
[The information follows:]
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE NAPIAP FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension activities........................................ 3,363,000 3,363,000 3,313,000 3,214,000
Research activities......................................... 1,474,000 1,327,000 1,327,000 1,327,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total, CSREES......................................... 4,837,000 4,690,000 4,640,000 4,541,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. Provide specific examples of the changes your agency has
undergone as a result of passage of the 1996 farm bill.
Response. As a result of provisions set forth in the 1996 Farm
Bill, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform--FAIR--Act, CSREES
has: implemented several new programs; initiated the development and
implementation of a comprehensive database system known as the
Research, Education, and Economics Data Information System;
participated in the establishment and activities of a consolidated
advisory board known as the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
Education, and Economics Advisory Board; expects to participate in a
Task Force on the 10-Year Strategic Plan for Agricultural Research
Facilities; and participated in activities resulting from conservation
and environmental changes resulting from the FAIR Act. Highlights of
these activities follow:
New programs
Fund for rural America.
The Fund for Rural America, authorized under Sec. 793 of the FAIR
Act, was established as an account in the Treasury of the United States
and coincided with fundamental reforms to Federal farm programs. The
Fund provides $100 million in each of three years to aid critical rural
development programs, assist beginning and socially disadvantaged
farmers, and fund a competitive grant program to support research,
education, and extension activities. CSREES was charged with
administering the competitive grants program supported by the Fund for
Rural America and has implemented the program in fiscal year 1997.
CSREES expects to award $43.7 million in 1997 for grants to support
applied, developmental, and adaptive research; technology transfer;
extension and related out-reach activities; and education. Projects
will be awarded for short- and intermediate-term application of
existing investments in research and development through integration of
research, extension, and education activities and will emphasize
biological, physical, and social sciences to address systems-based
problems. This requires involvement of affected parties within the
system, such as producers, commodity groups, environmental interests,
rural communities, and others; therefore, funding priorities will be
given to projects that are designed and proposed by eligible grant
recipients in collaboration with institutions, organizations, and
communities of interest.
Community food projects programs.
The Community Food Projects program, authorized by Sec. 25 of the
Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended by Sec. 401 of the FAIR Act,
supports the development of community food projects designed to meet
the food needs of low-income people; increase the self-reliance of
communities in providing for their own needs; and promote comprehensive
responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues. The Secretary
delegated the authority to implement and administer the Community Food
Projects Program to CSREES which implemented the program in fiscal year
1996 and competitively awarded 13 grants totaling $1 million.
Recipients of these funds are required to provide matching resources
amounting to at least 50 percent of the total cost of the project.
Hispanic Serving Institutions Education Grants Program
Sec. 1455 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 was amended by the FAIR Act to authorize
the Hispanic Serving Institutions Education Grants Program which is
administered by CSREES. CSREES implemented the program in fiscal year
1997 and expects to award $1.4 million for projects that promote and
strengthen the ability of Hispanic-serving institutions to carry out
higher education programs in the food and agricultural sciences. Funded
projects will address one or more targeted need areas: curricula design
and materials development; faculty preparation and enhancement for
teaching; instruction delivery systems; scientific instrumentation for
teaching; student experiential learning; and student recruitment and
retention.
Research, education, and economics information system--REEIS
Sec. 804 of the FAIR Act authorized the development and
implementation of a system to monitor and evaluate activities conducted
or supported by USDA to measure the impact and effectiveness of
agricultural research, extension, and education programs. USDA and its
Research, Education, and Economics--REE--Mission Area agencies, along
with our university partners, lack an integrated, user-friendly
electronic data system to serve as an inventory of the thousands of
programs and projects that focus on food, agriculture, natural
resources, and rural development. Such an information system is needed
to enable the Department and its partners to readily conduct both
comprehensive baseline and ongoing assessments as well as evaluations
of research, education, extension, and economics programs and projects.
Leadership responsibility for REEIS rest with CSREES and an initial
appropriation of $.4 million in fiscal year 1997 is being used to
initiate planning of the system's design and development. We are in the
process of establishing a National Steering Committee to provide advice
and guidance throughout the development and implementation process
which will be comprised of both users and producers of REE agencies'
data, including program officials and program leaders, information
system managers from other Federal agencies, representatives from
Federal oversight agencies, program/project leaders from partner
institutions, and private sector users of REE data.
Advisory committees
The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and
Economics Advisory Board, mandated by Sec. 802 of the FAIR Act, has
been in operation since September 1996 and is comprised of 30 members
representing 30 constituent categories, as set forth in the FAIR Act.
In addition, ex-officio members defined in the FAIR Act include: The
Secretary; Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics; and
the Administrators for the Agricultural Research Service, the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the
Economic Research Service, and the National Agricultural Statistics
Service. The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and
Economics Advisory Board replaced the Joint Council on Food and
Agricultural Sciences, the Users Advisory Board, and the Agricultural
Science and Technology Review Board. The FAIR Act also terminated the
Committee of Nine, the Animal Health Research Advisory Committee, and
the National Sustainable Agriculture Advisory Council. The Advisory
Board has addressed the short-term objectives included in the FAIR Act
requirements, such as nominating members to the agricultural research
facilities Strategic Planning Task Force, recommending priorities for
implementing the Fund for Rural America, and reviewing agricultural
research priorities drafted by USDA for the Strategic Plans of the REE
mission area agencies. The Advisory Board will sponsor a ``Stakeholder
Symposium'' in March 1997 for stakeholder input on the REE agencies'
Strategic Plans and will provide input on the reauthorization of the
Research Title of the Farm Bill. Some of the broad long-term agenda
items for the Board include mechanisms for more effective stakeholder
input to REE priority setting involving regional listening sessions,
the Fund for Rural America implementation and long-term vision, and
input to the REE Strategic Plan.
The FAIR Act, Sec. 803, exempts public meetings with university
cooperators from the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
CSREES is using this exemption to obtain recommendations from the land-
grant university system on the allocation of Hatch Act Regional
Research funds, an issue which was formerly addressed by the Committee
of Nine.
Task force on 10-year strategic plan for agricultural research
facilities
Sec. 884 of the FAIR Act amended the Research Facilities Act (7
U.S.C. 390 et seq.). A stipulation of the amendment is that the
Secretary establish a Strategic Planning Task Force to review all
currently operating agricultural research facilities constructed in
whole or in part with Federal funds, and all planned agricultural
research facilities proposed to be constructed with Federal funds, to
ensure that a comprehensive research capacity is maintained. The
National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics
Advisory Board has nominated members to the agricultural research
facilities Strategic Planning Task Force, and the Secretary is expected
to name the 15 members of the Task Force in the near future. In
accordance with the amended Research Facilities Act, the Task Force
will, within 2 years, prepare and submit to the Secretary and the
congressional agriculture committees a 10-year strategic plan
reflecting national and regional perspectives regarding agricultural
research facilities proposed to be constructed with Federal funds.
Conservation and environmental impacts
The FAIR Act made some significant changes in conservation and
environmental aspects impacting the nation's farmers and ranchers. A
grass roots effort to increase the attention provided to private
grazing land owners/managers has resulted in CSREES being involved at
the Federal and state levels. CSREES advises the National Steering
Committee of the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative and participants
in the formation of state grazing land coalitions. The Environmental
Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Reserve Program have
required CSREES to aggressively assist in the development of
communications plans and to provide current information to the states
so that appropriate educational programs can be developed and delivered
to assist the producer in making the best choices for a given
situation. As a result of the FAIR Act and the creation of the Risk
Management Agency, CSREES is working with RMA and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission to develop a Memorandum of Understanding that
encourages the organizations to collaborate more closely in the
development of comprehensive educational materials, more than options
and insurance, to assist farmers and ranchers in reducing or better
managing risk.
1890 facilities program
Mr. Skeen. The 1990 farm bill authorized a $40 million, five-year
facilities program for the 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Tuskegee
University. Funding began in fiscal year 1993 and will end in fiscal
year 1997. Was this program reauthorized in the 1996 farm bill?
Response. The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of
1996 reauthorized Section 1447(b) of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 for fiscal years
1996 and 1997. This grant program to upgrade agricultural and food
sciences facilities at 1890 Land-Grant Colleges authorizes $15,000,000
for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
food and nutrition
Mr. Skeen. Does Extension conduct any studies and evaluations in
the area of food and nutrition assistance? If so, provide a brief
description of all ongoing work including the amount being spent in
this area.
Response. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service, in partnership with the Cooperative Extension System, is
conducting several ongoing projects in nutrition education with an
evaluation component related to the food assistance programs. The
following are a few specific examples of accomplishments:
ES/WIC Nutrition Education Initiative
ES/WIC Nutrition Education Initiative was designed to change
behavior and promote the nutritional well-being of the neediest Women,
Infants, and Children--WIC--participants. To accomplish this goal,
outcome objectives were aimed at increasing knowledge and improving
behavior in such areas as prenatal diets, breast feeding initiation and
duration, meal planning, food selection, purchasing, and preparation.
Over 260 WIC Clinics nationwide collaborated with the Cooperative
Extension System to serve over 141,650 participants. Additionally, more
than 3,200 participants have completed the program so far. Preliminary
results from ongoing studies suggest that these programs facilitate
participants' increased knowledge or skills related to diet and
lifestyle such as:
In Washington, 92 percent of participants reported increased
knowledge about planning nutritionally balanced meals:
In Nebraska, 90 percent of program graduates reported improvements
in their ability to plan meals;
In Hawaii, 84 percent of the program graduates showed increased
knowledge in their ability to interpret food labels, select, buy, and/
or prepare appropriate foods to meet nutritional needs for themselves
and their families;
In New Jersey, more than 70 percent of the participants could
identify missing food groups from planned meals or could use food
models to develop a well balanced menu, and 85 percent of the
participants demonstrated proper handling procedures during food
preparation;
In Arizona, 81 percent of the participants demonstrated increased
knowledge or skill related to diets of lactating women and their
infants; and
In Iowa, 46 percent of participants scored 100 on the Lactation
Inventory which measured the knowledge of breast feeding.
There were 74 projects funded. The total allocation for the past
three years were as follows:
Fiscal year 1993........................................ $3,530,000
Fiscal year 1994........................................ 4,265,000
Fiscal year 1995........................................ 4,265,000
Family Nutrition Programs (FNP)
The Cooperative Extension System, in at least 35 States, is
conducting nutrition education programs for Food Stamp recipients under
the Family Nutrition Program funded by the Food Stamp Program. In
Fiscal Year 1996, the Federal dollars awarded were over $36 million. An
amount at least equal to this was contributed by the states, usually
from Cooperative Extension funds. The following summarizes some of
these efforts:
New Hampshire's FNP includes working in the specific subject areas
of money management and nutrition. The staff has worked with internal
and external teams to identify needs, develop programs and materials,
implement these projects and evaluate them.
Minnesota delivers FNP in multiple locations throughout the state.
Upon completion of the program, Food Stamp recipients are recruited to
be volunteer food consultants. Those participating increase self-esteem
and self-confidence.
In South Dakota's FNP, a group of mothers participated in examining
ways to incorporate the Food Guide Pyramid and low calorie nutritious
food into their diets to attain a healthier weight.
Colorado FNP graduates report that they are able to extend their
food stamps by an average of 6.39 days, and have an average savings of
$85.82 on their monthly grocery bills; 96 percent of FNP graduates
demonstrated positive change in their eating habits.
Of the 381 food stamp participants in Iowa's FNP from Jan-Mar 1996,
50 percent reported that they were better able to meet family
nutritional needs and to budget food dollars to last all month; 71
percent increased their skills in setting up a spending plan; and 70
percent were able to control impulse buying.
In 1996, the nutrition program in Maine expanded to include 12
counties, and included partnering with the Bureau of Elder and Adult
Services to provide nutrition education and information to elderly food
stamp recipients via congregate meal sites and home meal delivery.
Nutrition education networks and other projects
Last summer, the Food and Consumer Service funded 12 projects for
the development of nutrition education networks within a state. Of the
12 projects, all included Cooperative Extension Service--CES--partners
in the list of ``committed members''. Virginia, Minnesota, Alabama, and
Washington all had CES as the primary applicant. Vermont, Maine,
Indiana, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Arizona and California are listed as
committed members for the remaining projects. The amount of funding
varied from $61,231 to $99,514 per state. The total amount awarded was
$967,355.
project terminations
Mr. Skeen. How did the research agencies decide to terminate the
specific projects that are listed in the Explanatory Notes?
Response. As a part of the Administration's efforts to balance the
budget and direct spending to higher priority areas, CSREES proposed to
eliminate those programs and projects that were state specific and/or
did not address current national or regional priorities. In keeping
with the Administration's policy of awarding research, education, and
extension grants through a competitive, merit-review process, programs
and projects earmarked for specific institutions were also proposed for
elimination. Depending on whether it is a research or extension program
or project proposed for termination, it is possible that funding from
basic formula programs, the National Research Initiative, State and
local governments, and/or private sources could be used to continue
aspects of the program deemed to be of a high priority at State or
local levels.
bard
Mr. Skeen. The U.S.-Israeli Binational Agricultural Research and
Development Program was established in 1977. The original endowment was
for $80 million. What is currently in the endowment?
Response. The amount currently in the endowment is $110 million.
Mr. Skeen. What has been provided to date for the BARD program?
Response. The original $80 million endowment was established in
1977. In 1984, Congress provided an additional $15 million which was
matched by the Israeli Government. Currently, the total endowment is
valued at $110 million U.S. Dollars.
Mr. Skeen. For the record, what were the original conditions for
funding this program?
Response. The original conditions for funding this program required
that both the U.S. and Israel contribute $40 million each to an
endowment for the promotion and support of agricultural research and
the development of research of mutual interest and benefit particularly
for geographical areas in which water supply and rainfall limit crop
production.
Mr. Skeen. What is the current interest at which the corpus is
accumulating funds?
Response. The current interest at which the body is accumulating
funds includes the original investment of $80 million at 7 percent, and
the additional $30 million invested at the London Interbank Offer Rate
of 6.9 percent.
Mr. Skeen. Has Israel matched all U.S. funding in this account?
Response. Yes, Israel has matched all U.S. funding in this account.
Mr. Skeen. What is the total amount of Israeli funding to date?
Response. The total amount of Israeli funding to date is $62.5
million derived from a $55 million contribution to the endowment, plus
a dollar-for-dollar match of $2.5 million each year in fiscal years
1994 through 1996 for a total of $7.5 million. It is anticipated that
Israel will provide a dollar-for-dollar match to the $2.0 million
appropriated to CSREES for BARD in FY 1997.
Mr. Skeen. For the record please provide some specifics of what has
been accomplished so far in this research project.
Response. Some of the recent accomplishments include:
Integrated Pest Management.--Increased resistance to pesticides and
pressing environmental and food safety concerns have let to intense
interest in biological pest control in both the U.S. and in Israel.
Harvested fruits have high-market value, however, losses due to disease
and damage are considerable. BARD-supported collaboration between
scientists from U.S. and Israel have found natural bacterial and yeast
antagonists of citrus green mold, blue mold, and sour rot fungi. The
emerging technology from these joint projects has been co-patented.
Improved Water Utilization for Agriculture.--In addition to being
available in limited supply, water resources in arid areas often are
saline. About two-thirds of the U.S. groundwater supply contains 1,000-
3,000 ppm salt. Israel is a pioneer in the profitable agricultural use
of brackish water. U.S.-Israeli joint BARD projects have resulted in
special irrigation schedules, developed from a series of computerized
models, which have helped to save pecan orchards in the American
Southwest. The technology is also advantageous for Israel, where
agriculture consumes 70 percent of the water resources.
Identification of Genetic Markers.--Genetic markers are useful and
important in poultry and beef breeding. BARD projects have already
provided the central foundation for development of genetic maps of the
poultry genome. Current BARD projects are developing genetic markers
for important properties such as growth, and production in both beef
and poultry. BARD awardees typically are working on fundamental science
in agriculturally important areas supported by the National Research
initiative. Therefore, BARD also contributes to the overall knowledge
base needed to address agricultural problems.
biotechnology risk assessment
Mr. Skeen. Describe how CSREES has used these funds and provide a
few specific examples of grants and their accomplishments.
Response. Funding for the Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research
Grants Program is provided by a one percent set-aside of USDA funds
allotted annually for biotechnology research. The program became fully
operational in fiscal year 1992 and is administered jointly by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and the
Agricultural Research Service. The purpose of the program is to assist
Federal regulatory agencies in making science-based decisions about the
safety of introducing genetically modified plants, animals, and
microbes into the environment. It is intended to provide a science-
based evaluation and interpretation of factual information in which a
given hazard and consequence, if any, is identified and explored. Nine
research topic areas are supported, including: (1) development of risk
assessment methods and procedures; (2) creation of information systems
and computer models; (3) risk assessment of the environment fate of
genetically modified fungi, bacteria, viruses, plants, arthropods,
fish, birds, and mammals introduced into the environment; (4) risk
assessment of bidirectional rates, effects of selection pressures,
mechanisms and impact of gene transfer between transformable crop
species and existing weedy relatives of those crops; (5) assessment of
the potential for recombination between plant viruses and plant-encoded
viral genes; (6) assessment of changes in viral host ranges or the
types of viral vectors as a result of the use of transgenic plants
expressing viral genes; (7) assessment of the potential for nontarget
effects of introducing plant-defense compounds expressed in genetically
modified plant-associated microorganisms especially in regard to
persistence of the organisms and material in the environment; (8)
identification of genes which can confer additional pathogenicity to
animal pathogens; and (9) environmental risk analysis of larger scale
deployment of genetically engineered organisms that may not be revealed
through small scale evaluations and tests. Since 1992, a total of 49
research projects and 3 annual conference-symposia have received funds
totaling $8.0 million. In fiscal year 1996 key areas for which grants
were awarded include research to assess the risk of the release of
genetically engineered viruses, insects and microbes for use as
biopesticides, alternative pest management, or vaccine production.
Additionally, research on genetically engineered fish, plants and
microbes was funded to assess the potential consequences of their
release into terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems.
aflatoxin research, illinois
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Aflatoxin Research, Illinois grant.
Mr. Response. Past work on this problem has involved identifying
corn germplasm resistant to aflatoxin, identifing Aspergillus flavus-
inhibiting compounds, identifying fungus-inhibiting enzymes, developing
transformation methods, and developing tissue culture/plant
regeneration procedures.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for the
research?
Response. Aflatoxins are potent carcinogens with other toxic
properties, and pose potential health risks wherever toxin-contaminated
corn occurs. Aflatoxin contamination occurs frequently in the
southeastern United States, but outbreaks have also occurred in the
upper midwest.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was the reduction of
aflaxtoxin production in corn. Recent accomplishments include
identification of corn germplasm producing high levels of fungus-
inhibiting enzymes, production of transformed corn plants, finding new
sources of resistance, and developing advanced corn lines for hybrid
production.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $87,000; fiscal year 1991, $131,000; and
fiscal years 1992-1993, $134,000 per year, fiscal year 1994, $126,000;
and fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997, $113,000 per year. A total of
$951,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are: $21,251 university operating funds for project investigator salary
and fringe benefits, and $18,000 in corn seed company support.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted at the University of
Illinois.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the original
objectives was 1995. The original objectives have not been completely
met. In other related work, the project leaders, working with
collaborating corn breeders, anticipate providing the different sources
of resistance to commercial seed companies for incorporation into high-
yielding commercial hybrids within five to seven years.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The last agency evaluation was in December 1996. In
summary, the evaluation stated that the research techniques are
consistent with high likelihood that specific objectives will be
accomplished. There is a good balance between fundamental and applied
research, which should foster the development of new, highly-desirable
corn germplasm.
agricultural diversification and specialty crops, hawaii
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agricultural Diversification and Specialty Crops
grant.
Response. The white taro project is in its final phase. Many of the
processing obstacles have been overcome, flour is being produced in
pilot-scale quantities, better taro food product formulations are
coming out and the project is ready to turn over to the private sector.
Due to demand conditions, the pineapple wet-pack processing project was
changed to a high pressure minimal processing of tropical fruits. High
pressure processing of tropical fruits provides a ready-to-eat chilled
fresh product by adding value to fruit which can not meet fresh fruit
quality standards and eliminating the fruit fly quarantine problem.
Once the high pressure equipment arrives in February 1997, qualitative
results should be out quickly. An agricultural business development
handbook called, ``The Hawaii Product Went to Market'' was published.
It contains 43 short chapters written by 46 people representing 26
companies and institutions in Hawaii. This book was necessary to help
others with business initiation and expansion. A new taro production
manual is nearing completion. Agribusiness interested in taro now have
what all good agribusinesses need: a cost of production study, market
reconnaissance information delivered by the project's newsletter,
marketing tools developed in earlier phases of this project, and a
production manual. Underlying all of this information is a business
guide.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Hawaii's economy needs help to recover after the decline
of sugar and pineapple in the State. Taro products would be one such
avenue, albeit relatively small at the outset. These gluten-free
products could be a staple to many people in the U.S. who suffer from
food ingredient intolerance. In general, collaboration with the private
sector is needed to evaluate the commercial potential of university-
based work.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of the original proposal was to screen potential
food and non-food crops for commercial development in Hawaii. As
mentioned above, white taro emerged as one of the most promising
opportunities and also offered the opportunity to develop an
infrastructure what will help new crop ideas come on line even faster.
Overall, the researchers have identified a need, people with food
sensitivities; then identified a crop; figured out a mechanism to
inexpensively process the crop into flour; worked with a private sector
company to set-up a pilot-scale facility; developed the operating
protocol for the facility; worked with local food processors to develop
prototype products and have improved on them; and found some interested
parties that might be willing to invest in the commercial version of
this project. Currently, the University of Hawaii is working on
handing-off the project to the private sector. The high pressure
project is just getting off the ground because it took a long time to
acquire the equipment.
Mr. Skeen. How long has work been underway and how much has been
appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriate as
follows: fiscal year 1992, $145,786; fiscal year 1993, $145,401; fiscal
year 1994, $136,895; fiscal year 1995, $123,060; fiscal years 1996 and
1997, $123,109 per year. A total of $797,360 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The University of Hawaii provides in-kind support in the
form of laboratory and office facilities, equipment and equipment
maintenance and administrative support services: $68,503 in fiscal year
1992; $75,165 in fiscal year 1993; and $74,663 in each fiscal year
1994-1997. In addition, nearly $35,000 of in-kind support has come from
private sector partners and $30,000 is committed from the private
sector on the high pressure minimal processing project.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of Hawaii's
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, and on the Big
Island of Hawaii.
Mr. Skeen. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. All taro-related work will be done by May 31, 1997 and
all objectives will be met. The high pressure processing project will
have a great deal of work done by May 31, 1998 but will need to be
continued on private sector funds.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The CSREES agency representative to this project meets
with the University of Hawaii investigators at least twice each year to
review progress and plan subsequent activities. This close interaction
has led the project through a progression of steps from research
discovery to near-term commercialization, and, in the case of high
pressure processing, back to testing and development of a new
technology for possible commercial use.
alliance for food protection, nebraska and georgia
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alliance for Food Protection grant.
Response. The fiscal year 1997 appropriation supports the
continuation of a collaborative alliance between the University of
Georgia Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement and the
University of Nebraska Department of Food Science and Technology.
Fiscal year 1996 funds supported research at the University of Nebraska
on the detection, identification and characterization of food
allergens, the effects of processing on peanut allergens, and
investigation of the efficacy of using various types of thermal
processes to reduce or destroy the toxicity and mutagenicity of certain
Fusarium metabolites in corn and corn products. Research at the
University of Georgia was directed toward determining the foodborne
significance of Helicobacter pylori, determining the fate of Arcobacter
in foods and the effect of environmental factors on survival and
growth, determining the efficacy of nisin and environmental factors on
controlling Bacillus cereus, and developing a device to rapidly detect
foodborne pathogens using immunomagnetic separation technology.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researchers believes the proposed research
addresses emerging issues in food safety which have national, regional
and local significance. Specifically, research will address bacterial
pathogens that can cause ulcers, cancer and diarrheal illness and
allergens in foods that cause serious reactions, including death, in
sensitive people. These emerging issues affect consumers, the food
industry, and food producers at all levels, national, state, and local.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to: (1) facilitate
the development and modification of food processing and preservation
technologies to enhance the microbiological and chemical safety of
products as they reach the consumer and (2) develop new rapid and
sensitive techniques for detecting pathogens and their toxins as well
as toxic chemicals and allergens in foods. The University of Nebraska
developed assays for the detection of milk and egg residues in
processed foods, produced high-quality antibodies for soybean proteins,
partially characterized sunflower seed and soybean allergens, and
developed a simple liquid chromatographic procedure for determination
of moniliformin toxin. The University of Georgia developed a method to
culture Helicobacter pylori, identified a treatment to prevent Bacillus
cereus from producing toxin in refrigerated foods, determined survival
and growth characteristics of Arcobacter and Helicobacter pylori, and
determined the appropriate homogenization conditions to prepare food
samples for rapid detection of pathogens by immunoseparation.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1996, and $300,000 was appropriated in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, for
a total appropriation of $600,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were $117,000 state funds and $250,000 industry and miscellaneous in
fiscal year 1996 and are expected to be $141,000 state funds and
$175,000 industry and miscellaneous in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at the University of Georgia
Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement in Griffin, Georgia and
at the University of Nebraska Department of Food Sciences and
Technology in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. The original objectives have not yet been met. The
researchers anticipate that work will be completed on the original
objectives in 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of
the proposals submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual
basis. A review of the proposal from the University of Nebraska was
conducted on December 20, 1996, and good progress was demonstrated on
the objectives undertaken to date as discussed above. A progress report
from the University of Georgia was evaluated by the agency on January
16, 1997, and demonstrated good progress on its 1996 objectives.
alternative crops for arid lands, texas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alternative Crops for Arid Lands, Texas grant.
Response. This grant is to develop the two most abundant plants in
southwestern United States, i.e. mesquite and cactus, into commercial
crops through a combination of applied research and market development.
In Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California these plants occupy 72
million acres.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this goal?
Response. The semi-arid regions of the United States that border
with Mexico in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have some of
the highest unemployment rates, lowest economic returns per acre, and
lowest incomes in the United States. The two most abundant plant
species in this region are prickly pear cactus and mesquite. By working
with Mexican researchers, this grant will help to stabilize the
economic situation of rural poor in Mexico and the United States. There
are few crops capable of being grown sustainably in these regions. Due
to the nitrogen fixing capability, and thus soil improving properties,
of mesquite and high water use efficiency of cactus, these plants
contribute to sustainable agriculture, and will diversify southwestern
agriculture. This research group is the only center in the United
States developing these plants as crops. The principal researcher has
been active with a national New Crops initiative supported by the
Center for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) to develop grants
programs for new feed/food from new crops.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal is to improve the economic returns, and year-to-
year economic stability in the southwestern United States.
Accomplishments have been sale of a new cactus vegetable variety in 100
stores of the largest retail grocery chain in Texas, presentations to
architects in all major cities in Texas on mesquite technical qualities
and all mesquite sawmill and furniture manufacturers, publication of 4
year field trials in which cactus was found to be the most efficient
converter of water to dry matter of all plant types, a major collection
of 130 fruit, forage and vegetable varieties of cactus, 10 year non-
irrigated pruning and spacing trial with mesquite found diameter growth
rates greater than walnut and oak in the northeastern United States,
and a sustainable system for mesquite management that avoids use of
bulldozers and aerial herbicides by creating markets for mesquite
products and utilizing mesquite's nitrogen fixing properties. As a
result of an international workshop held at the National Academy of
Sciences in Washington, the Global Environment Facility encouraged
submission of a proposal for a network including Mexico, Haiti, Peru,
Argentina, Brazil, Senegal, Pakistan, India and the United States on
mesquite technical cooperation. Closely related work tested our biomass
harvester on salt cedar along the Rio Grand in Albuquerque, New Mexico
and on pinyon/juniper on Acoma Indian Reservation to find economical
harvesting techniques and uses for these problem species.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Fiscal year 1994 was the first year of funding for this
grant and $94,000 was appropriated. In fiscal years 1995 through 1997,
$85,000 was appropriated each year. A total of $349,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. In fiscal year 1994, $43,215, was provided by the Texas
legislature.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The work is being conducted by Texas A&M University,
Kingsville, Texas.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project: Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. Significant but small Texas cactus and mesquite
industries now exist. Transformation of these small industries into
medium industries and transfer of the arid technologies to low rainfall
areas of the Midwestern and southeastern United States will carry on 10
years into the next century.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on
the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
investigator, as appropriate. The review is conducted by the cognizant
staff scientist who has determined that this research is in accordance
with the mission of the agency.
alternative crops, north dakota
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alternative Crops, North Dakota program.
Response. In this investigation of alternative crops, there are two
main thrusts: the development and commercialization of novel new crops,
and the differentiation of traditional crops. Both avenues of research
have the shared goals of increasing biodiversity at the farm and field,
while producing new crops and products for current and future societal
needs. Some of these include (a) the development of crambe, flax,
sunflower, safflower, and various rapeseeds as a renewable supply of
industrial oil, (b) the study of products from amaranth, potatoes,
sugarbeets, carrots, soybeans, barley, and sunflower for novel new uses
in the paints, coatings, as food ingredients, and critical human
nutrition markets, and (c) the development of new biochemical and
enzymatic process to refine and create supercritical and other high-
value fluids from oilseed crops which could serve as effective
renewable replacements for industrial uses.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that nationally,
developing new crops and new markets for agricultural products is
critical for both environmental and economic reasons. Enhanced
biodiversity that comes from the successful commercialization of new
crops aids farmers in dealing with pests, reducing the dependency upon
pesticides. New markets are needed to provide more economic stability
for agricultural products, especially as federal price supports are
gradually withdrawn. The development of new crops and products, offers
a unique way to satisfy national goals of enhanced environmental
quality, while at the same time opening new economic opportunities to
farmers and other rural entrepreneurs. Regionally, the temperate areas
of the Midwest have the potential to grow a great number of different
crops, but are in need of publicly sponsored research efforts to reveal
the most practical, efficient, and economical crops and products to
pursue. This effort has forged a strong link with the private sector,
and successfully spawned several crops and products into profitable
private sector businesses.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was and still is to
introduce, evaluate and test new crops which will broaden the economic
diversity of crops grown in North Dakota. Over the past eight years,
this special federal appropriation has been an important part of North
Dakota State University's approach to research and development on
agricultural alternatives. It has helped sponsor research on crambe,
lupin, canola, safflower, cool-season grain legumes, buckwheat,
amaranth, field pea production and utilization, transgenic sugar beets
to produce levan, utilization and processing of lupin flour,
confectionary sunflower production, and growing and marketing of
carrots in North Dakota. It has helped develop a crop-derived red food
dye, and high quality pectin as food ingredients. It has sponsored
research on innovative new biochemical means of splitting crop oils,
and other new uses of oilseed crops. It has also helped develop markets
for new crops as livestock and fish feeds. This appropriation has
helped create both new knowledge and new wealth.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Appropriations by fiscal year are as follows: 1990,
$494,000; 1991, $497,000; 1992 and 1993, $700,000 per year; 1994,
$658,000 and in fiscal year 1995, $592,000; and in 1996 and 1997,
$550,000 per year. A total of $4,691,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. In fiscal year 1991, $10,170 was provided by state
appropriations. In fiscal year 1992, $29,158, was also provided by
state appropriations and self-generated funds. In fiscal year 1993,
$30,084, was provided by state appropriations. In fiscal year 1994,
$161,628 was provided by state funds, $3,189 provided by industry and
$9,020 provided by other sources, totalling $174,417. In fiscal year
1995, $370,618 was provided by state appropriations, $1,496 provided by
self-generated funds, $1,581 provided by industry and $5,970 was
provided in other non-federal funds, totalling $379,665 for FY 95. In
fiscal year 1996 $285,042 was provided by state appropriation, $4,742
provided by industry, $14,247 provided from other non-federal funds,
totalling $304,031 for 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work is conducted on the campus of North Dakota State
University and at the Carrington Research and Extension Center,
Carrington, North Dakota, and the Williston Research Center, which are
both in North Dakota. Work is also being done in eastern Montana.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. Fiscal year 1997 is the eighth year of activity under
this grant. The primary emphasis has been to find new crops with non-
food uses and create value added products. The original objectives have
been met, and continue to expand. As U.S. agriculture enters a new
policy era with less emphasis on commodity subsidies, great opportunity
may exist to better establish greater biodiversity in agriculture. Such
a change, however will remain dependent upon research and development
programs specifically targeted at such a goal. Therefore, research
activities will continue indefinitely, as new products are developed.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This project has been evaluated based on the annual
progress report and agency participation in evaluating proposals
submitted to the Agricultural Experiment Station under this grant. The
cognizant staff scientist has reviewed the project and determined that
the research is conducted in accordance with the mission of this
agency.
alternative marine and freshwater species, mississippi
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the alternative marine and freshwater species grant.
Response. The research has focused on the culture of hybrid striped
bass, prawns, and crawfish. Nutritional requirements and alternative
management strategies for these species have been evaluated and field
tested. utilization of improved technologies will enhance production
efficiency and accelerate the use of these alternative species and
alternative management strategies in commercial aquaculture.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher indicates that as the
aquaculture industry continues to grow, it is extremely important to
consider alternative species and production strategies for culture in
order to help the industry diversity. Diversification is of benefit to
both the producer and consumer of aquaculture products.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to develop and
evaluate aquaculture production technologies that would lead to the use
of alternative species and management strategies in commercial
aquaculture production. Research evaluating stocking rates, nutritional
requirements, and methods to reduce stress in hybrid striped bass
production systems has led to the development of improved production
efficiency in these systems. Recent research indicates that feed
formulations for hybrid striped bass should be adjusted for seasonal
fluctuations in temperature. Nutritional studies also indicate that the
niacin requirement for striped bass may be much lower than previously
reported. Field testing of alternative management strategies for
crawfish indicates that the most efficient and cost effective
production strategy involves the appropriate combination of stocking,
feeding, and harvesting practices. In addition, researchers evaluating
product quality of cryogenically frozen whole prawns indicate that
prawns can be kept in frozen storage up to 7 months with no loss of
quality.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1991-1993 has been $275,000
per year, $258,000 in 1994, and $308,000 in fiscal years 1995-1997 each
year. A total of $2,007,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The university reports a total of $332,091 of non-federal
funding to support research carried out under this program for fiscal
years 1991-1994, $70,636 in fiscal year 1995 and $79,935 in fiscal year
1996. The primary source of the non-federal funding was from state
sources.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at Mississippi State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The original specific research objectives were to be
completed in 1994. These specific research objectives have been met,
however, the broader research objectives of the program are still being
addressed. The specific research outlined in the current proposal will
be completed in fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to submit an accomplishment
report when the new grant proposal is submitted to CSREES for funding.
The 1996 review indicated that the research addresses an important
opportunity in the aquaculture industry, that progress on previous
research was well documented, and that the proposed research builds on
the previous work funded through this program.
animal science food safety consortium
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the animal science food safety consortium program.
Response. The research goal of the consortium has been to enhance
the safety of red meat and poultry products for human consumption.
Research has focused on accomplishing six objectives: (1) develop rapid
detection techniques for pathogenic bacteria and toxic chemicals for
use by the red meat and poultry production-marking system; (2) devise a
statistical framework from which to develop tolerance levels for these
hazardous substances; (3) identify effective interdiction points and
develop methods to prevent or reduce substance presence; (4) develop
monitoring techniques and methodologies to detect and estimate the
human health risk of these contaminants; (5) develop technologies to
reduce hazards and enhance quality of animal food products to
complement the development of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
(HACCP) programs by the Department's Food Safety and Inspection
Service; and (6) estimate benefits and costs and risks associated with
interdiction alternatives. The consortium's researchers have focused
their efforts primarily on the first, fifth, and sixth objectives.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researchers believe a safer national meat
product food supply could reduce large economic losses, they estimate
$4 to $7 billion a year, as a result of lost productivity and wages and
medical treatment of victims of food-borne illnesses, in addition to
reducing the human suffering and loss of life that occur every year as
a result of these illnesses. Safer products could also find greater
acceptance in global markets, and, therefore, could contribute to
increased meat product exports and rural economic growth.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research, and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal is to develop detection, prevention, and
monitoring techniques that will reduce or eliminate the presence of
food borne pathogens and toxic substances from the Nation's red meat
and poultry supplies.
The consortium is organized and operated along institutional lines
with a coordinator and directors managing the research program.
Advisory and technical committees consist of outside representation and
provide advice on research planning and expertise on technical matters.
Major accomplishments this past year by the University of Arkansas
include showing that young infants and children are more likely to be
infected with Salmonella by caretakers than through food consumption,
developing a technique to distinguish strains of Salmonella that are
epidemiologically related, discovering anti-microbial bacteriocins with
potentially broad application in the food system, and testing a process
for mechanically stripping meat from poultry carcasses which may reduce
microbiological contamination. Researchers have also developed a
research oven which is leading to valuable models for cooking processes
that kill pathogens while retaining quality of cooked poultry. They
have also found that certain enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for
Listeria monocytogenes may not be useful in detecting these pathogens
in cooked food products as on uncooked products. An experimental system
for detection of Salmonella typhimurium organisms in pure culture has
been developed which is based on immunomagnetic, immunofluorescent
staining and image analysis which results in a significant reduction in
time for analysis. Intervention techniques have been shown to aid in
the reduction of bacterial populations as an integral component in
successful HACCP program implementation.
Major accomplishments this past year at Iowa State University
include development of rapid detection methods for foodborne pathogens
in live swine and on pork products, intervention approaches at
production and processing levels to enhance product safety, and
assessment of health risks from pathogens which may be borne by pork or
pork products. Specifics include the application of polymerase chain
reaction technology to detect and differentiate, Campylobacter jejuni
and the more prevalent Campylobacter Coli in pork, effective
application of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to identification and
antibodies against prevalent Salmonella species in swine sera and pork
meat extracts, and development of a reliable culture test for rapid
detection and differentiation of coliform and E. coli bacteria.
Effectiveness of a new vaccine for Salmonella developed with partial
sponsorship of the Consortium has been assessed in laboratory
experimentation and field experience. Research found that bacteria are
readily inactivated by practical levels of irradiation but viruses,
especially the small RNA viruses were quite resistant to irradiation
and were not sensitized to low heat treatment which would be sublethal
to non-irradiated contaminated pork. Willingness to pay for irradiated
pork or chicken was 10-30% above non-irradiated products in customer
market tests. Risk assessment studies on foodborne pathogens placed
public health impact from pork at high level for no pathogens, at
moderate level for Salmonella, Yersinia, Clostridium, and
Staphylococcus, and at low to negligible level for all other potential
pork borne pathogens.
Kansas State University has demonstrated under commercial
conditions that electronic identification systems to track and
determine contamination points for beef cattle are feasible from an
implant retention, operational, or retrievability standpoint; developed
analytical procedures to detect mycotoxin and organophosphate pesticide
contaminates in animal tissue; demonstrated optimum carcass washing and
trimming practices supplemental treatments of carcasses and cuts after
final handling to be effective in the removal of pathogens; and
demonstrated the efficacy of steam pasteurization and steam vacuuming
in eliminating pathogenic bacteria from beef carcasses. University
researchers have also determined that low dose irradiation is a viable
intervention technology with minimal effects on beef quality;
demonstrated that processing protocols for large diameter Lebanon
bologna are sufficient to control E. coli 0157:H7; determined that
monitoring endpoint cooking temperature of ground beef patties or
following a prescribed time/temperature interaction known to achieve a
given endpoint are the safest ways to prevent consumption of
undercooked ground beef; and developed technology to enhance growth of
pathogenic bacteria so they can be rapidly detected at very low but
potentially hazardous levels.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,400,000; fiscal year 1990, $1,678,000;
fiscal year 1991, $1,845,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $1,942,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994, $1,825,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $1,743,000
each year; and fiscal year 1997, $1,690,000. A total of $15,808,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $1,313,653 State appropriations, $2,959 product sales,
$35,600 industry, and $259,735 miscellaneous for a total of $1,611,947
in 1991; $1,270,835 State appropriations, $10,129 product sales,
$90,505 industry, and $267,590 miscellaneous for a total of $1,639,059
in 1992; $1,334,680 State appropriations, $1,365 product sales, $33,800
industry, and $356,308 miscellaneous for a total of $1,726,153 in 1993;
$1,911,389 State appropriations, $192,834 industry, and $200,000
miscellaneous for a total of $2,304,223 in 1994; $1,761,290 State
appropriations, $221,970 industry, and $91,885 miscellaneous for a
total of $2,075,145 in 1995; $2,643,666 State appropriations and
$152,431 industry, for a total of $2,796,097 in 1996; and $1,508,112
State appropriations, $638,172 industry, and $129,753 product sales,
for a total of $2,276,037 in 1997. Thus, from 1991 through 1997 a total
of $14,428,661 in non-federal funds was provided.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of Arkansas
at Fayetteville, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences at
Little Rock, Arkansas Children's Hospital, Iowa State University, and
Kansas State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. The current program of research outlined under the
Consortium's revised strategic research plan should be completed in
1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An agency science specialist evaluates the progress of
this project on an annual basis.
apple fire blight, michigan and new york
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Apple Fire Blight, Michigan and New York grant.
Response. This project studies fire blight in apple trees, which is
a disease that can kill fruit spurs, branches, and whole trees. The
research supported under this project will help develop fire blight
resistant varieties, evaluate biological and chemical controls, and
develops an education and extension component.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Fire blight is a destructive disease of apple trees that
can kill fruit spurs, branches, and whole trees. This disease is caused
by bacteria and effects apple trees in all apple growing areas of the
nation. In the northeast, the disease is more prevalent because of
humid weather conditions. The management of this disease is difficult
because only one antibiotic treatment is available.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The objectives are to develop transgenic apple trees
through various molecular technologies, to develop new approaches to
antibiotic treatment of the disease, to develop an early screening
technique for tree sensitivity to the disease, to evaluate biological
and cultural controls and to develop and improve education and
extension components of disease management. The last objective involves
using disease prediction models, especially the MARYBLYT tm.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Fiscal year 1997 was the first year funds were
appropriated for this grant. A total of $325,000 was appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What are the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The proposed non-federal funds for 1997 for the Michigan
proposal are estimated for state appropriated matching at $20,127 in
salaries and $20,000 miscellaneous whereas New York is estimating state
appropriated funds at $104,166 for 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where will this work be carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted Michigan State University and
Cornell University, New York Experiment Station.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated date of completion of the projects is in
fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The projects underwent merit reviews in January 1997. The
objectives outlined in the proposal appear to be satisfactory to meet
the goals.
aquaculture, illinois
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the aquaculture, Illinois grant.
Response. Researchers are developing and evaluating closed system
technology for application to commercial aquaculture. System design and
cost of production analysis for these systems have been conducted in
commercial trials and pilot studies.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the development of
alternative aquaculture production systems, such as closed
recirculating systems, would reduce demands for water and would provide
for greater control over production in aquaculture systems. Closed
systems could be established independent of climatic condition in any
region of the country. These systems also offer greater opportunity to
manage aquacultural waste and reduce environmental impact.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of this program is to develop closed
recirculating aquacultural systems in order to lower production cost,
improve product quality, and reduce the potential environmental impact
of aquacultural production systems. An analysis of production costs and
risk factors has been conducted on a new system design and on
commercial systems in cooperation with the private sector. Best
management practices have been developed for these systems. Solid waste
management techniques are also being evaluated.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1992. The appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $200,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994, $188,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $169,000
each year. A total of $1,095,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The university estimates that non-federal funding for
this program is as follows: in fiscal year 1992, $370,000; in fiscal
year 1993, $126,389; in fiscal year 1994, $191,789; in fiscal year
1995, $152,682; and in fiscal year 1996, $171,970. The primary source
of funding is from state with gifts and grants accounting for the
remainder. This estimate does not include substantial in-kind
contributions from industry as this program conducts cooperative
research with commercial producers.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being carried out at Illinois State
University at Normal, Illinois, through a subcontract with the
University of Illinois.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The original objectives were to be completed in fiscal
year 1995. The original specific objectives have been met. The specific
research outlined in the current proposal will be completed in fiscal
year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to provide an accomplishment
report each year when the new grant proposal is submitted to CSREES for
funding. The 1996 review of the project indicated that the project has
met stated objectives.
aquaculture, louisiana
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the aquaculture, Louisiana grant.
Response. Research has focused on catfish, crawfish, redfish, and
hybrid striped bass in commercial aquaculture. Research has included
basic and applied research in the areas of production systems,
genetics, aquatic animal health, nutrition, and product quality.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher indicates that there is a need
to improve production efficiency for a number of important aquaculture
species such as catfish, crawfish, hybrid striped bass, and redfish in
order to enhance the profitability and sustainability of the
aquaculture industry in the region. The research also addresses the
issue of food safety and the quality of farm-raised products.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to expand the
technology base to enhance the development of aquaculture through a
broad research program that addresses the needs of the industry. The
University has completed studies in the area of fish nutrition, fish
health, production management strategies, alternative species, seafood
processing and broodstock development. Research has led to improved
feed formulations, improved production strategies for crawfish, and
improved processing technologies for aquaculture products.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Research to be conducted under this program will continue
research initiated under the Aquaculture General program in fiscal
years 1988 through 1991. The work supported by this new grant category
began in fiscal year 1992 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992-
1993 was $390,000 per year, $367,000 in fiscal year 1994, and $330,000
in fiscal years 1995-1997 each year, for a total of $2,137,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The university estimates that non-federal funding for
this program is as follows: in fiscal year 1991, $310,051; in fiscal
year 1992, $266,857; in fiscal year 1993, $249,320; in fiscal year
1994, $188,816; in fiscal year 1995, $159,810; and in fiscal year 1996,
$150,104. The primary source of this funding is from state sources with
minor contributions from industry and other non-federal sources.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at Louisiana State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The original specific objectives were to be completed in
1990. These specific research objectives have been met. The specific
research outline in the current proposal will be completed in fiscal
year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to provide an accomplishment
report each year when the new grant proposal is submitted to CSREES for
funding. In addition, the CSREES program manager made a site visit in
1996 to meet with the scientists involved in the project and review the
progress of the research. The 1996 review of the project indicated that
the research is addressing important research needs of the aquaculture
industry, the proposed research represented a logical progression of
research previously funded through this program, and that the progress
on previous research funded under this program is well documented.s
aquaculture research, stoneville, mississippi
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research funded
under the aquaculture research, Stoneville, Mississippi, grant.
Response. The primary objectives of this research have been to
improve practical feeds and feeding strategies and improve water
quality in channel catfish ponds. Additionally, scientists are
evaluating the application of acoustical instrumentation in commercial
aquaculture.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher indicates that the research
findings from this project have a direct impact on the profitability
and sustainability of a significant segment of the domestic aquaculture
industry. The farmed-raised catfish industry accounts for over 55
percent of the total U.S. aquaculture industry. Research funded in this
program is directed towards two of the most important research needs of
the industry; water quality and improved feeds and feeding strategies.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to address the
research needs of the catfish industry in the areas of water quality
and nutrition. The research has led to improved waste quality
management practices in commercial catfish ponds. Research in the area
of catfish nutrition has led to improved diet formulation and feeding
strategies that have been widely adopted by the industry. Scientists
are currently evaluating five protein levels under two different
feeding regimes using conditions that closely reflect commercial
catfish ponds. Studies evaluating acoustical instrumentation have
demonstrated possible applications in commercial aquaculture.
Researchers are determining the accuracy and effectiveness of upgrade
and calibrated acoustical monitoring equipment.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1980-81, $150,000 per year; fiscal year 1982,
$240,000; fiscal years 1983-84, $270,000 per year; fiscal year 1985,
$420,000; fiscal years 1986-87, $400,000 per year; fiscal year 1988,
$500,000; fiscal year 1989, $588,000; fiscal year 1990, $581,000;
fiscal year 1991, $600,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $700,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $658,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $592,000 each
year. A total of $8,403,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The university estimates a total of $2,101,508 in non-
federal funding to support this research for fiscal years 1991-1994;
$1,128,451 in fiscal year 1995; and $601,473 in fiscal year 1996. The
primary source of non-federal funding is from the state. Additional
funding is provided from product sales, industry contributions, and
other miscellaneous sources.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The grants have been awarded to the Mississippi
Agricultural Experiment Station. All research is conducted at the Delta
Branch Experiment Station, Stoneville, Mississippi. The acoustical
research in aquaculture will be conducted in cooperation with the
National Center for Physical Acoustics at the University of
Mississippi.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the specific original
research objectives was 1984. These specific research objectives have
been met. The specific research outlined in the current proposal will
be completed in December 1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to provide an accomplishment
report when the new proposal is submitted to CSREES for funding. The
1996 review indicated that the research addresses important
opportunities in the farm raised catfish industry, significant progress
has been reported on specific research objectives, and that the
scientists involved in the project are leading authorities in this area
of research.
aquaculture, north carolina
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Aquaculture, North Carolina grant.
Response. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not been received. The researchers indicate that the
research will focus on reducing the environmental impact of aquaculture
systems, reducing the impact of diseases in cultured finfish, and
reducing the inherent risk of culturing emerging species.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher indicates that there is a need
to reduce the environmental impact of aquaculture systems, to enhance
fish health management strategies, and to reduce the impediments to
culture selected emerging species. Improved environmental quality and
improved production efficiency in aquacultural systems could have
regional and national impacts. Diversification of the industry in terms
of species cultured is of benefit to both the producer and consumer of
aquaculture products. The principal researcher believes this research
to be of national, regional or local needs.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goals of the research are to reduce environmental
impacts of aquaculture systems by improved system design and improved
feeding strategies, to evaluate the efficacy of current vaccination
methods and develop improved methods for vaccine administration, and to
develop culture techniques for potentially important aquaculture
species.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1997 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is $150,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The university reports a total of $94,000 of non-federal
funding to support research carried under this program for fiscal year
1997. The primary source of the non-federal funding was from state
sources.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at North Carolina State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. This is the first year of the project. The researchers
anticipate that the specific research objectives will be completed in
1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency will conduct the initial review of this
proposal when it is submitted to CSREES for funding. Since this is the
first year of the program, the proposal will be externally peer
reviewed as part of the CSREES evaluation.
babcock institute for international dairy research and development
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Babcock Institute grant.
Response. The Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research
and Development was established with participation of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, School or
Veterinary Medicine and the Cooperative Extension Division. The
objective of the Babcock Institute is to link the U.S. dairy industry
with the rest of the world through degree training, continuing
education, technology transfer, adaptive research, scientific
collaboration and market analysis.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the need is to
strengthen dairy industries around the world, to enhance international
commercial and scientific collaborative opportunities for the U.S.
dairy industry, and to draw upon global perspectives to build insight
into the strategic planning of the U.S. dairy industry.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of the Institute remains the linkage of the U.S.
dairy industry with the rest of the world through training, continuing
education and outreach, technology transfer, adaptive research,
scientific collaboration and market analysis. Initial efforts were
focused on planning and staffing. An initial activity was, and
continues to be, the development of multilanguage extension materials
about basic management techniques essential to optimize performance of
U.S. germplasm overseas. This activity has grown to include manuals on
Breeding and Genetics, Lactation and Milking, and Basic Dairy Farm
Financial Management published in English, Spanish, French, Russian,
and Chinese. Research on potential implications of NAFTA and GATT on
the U.S. dairy industry was completed. A technical workshop on dairy
grazing in New Zealand and the midwest was organized and held in
Madison during the fall of 1993. A technical workshop on Nutrient
Management, Manure and the Dairy Industry: European Perspectives and
Wisconsin's Challenges was held in Madison, Wisconsin during September
1994. A round table was held in January 1995 addressing ``World Dairy
Markets in the Post-GATT Era.'' Funding from this project also
supported the Great Lakes Dairy Sheep Symposium in 1995 and 1996, and
created a World Wide Web site in 1996 for distribution of Babcock
Institute technical dairy fact sheets in four languages. The first
International Dairy Short Course for a group of producers and
technicians from Argentina has been organized on the University of
Wisconsin Campus. Scientist's are being supported in collaborative
research with New Zealand primarily to gain a better
understanding of grazing systems as related to dairy management.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1992 and 1993, $75,000 per year: fiscal year
1994, $250,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $312,000 per year. A total
of $1,336,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. During fiscal year 1992, $13,145 of State funds were used
to support this program and $19,745 of State funds in fiscal year 1993
for a total of $32,890 during the first two years of this research.
Information is not available for fiscal year 1994-1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The Babcock Institute's overarching mission has been to
link the U.S. dairy industry and its trade potential with overseas
dairy industries and markets. The original objectives of this project
have remained consistent over the years. However, each year specific
objectives were proposed to further the mission of the Institute and to
build on previous accomplishments. The Institute has accomplished
specific objectives each year in a timely manner. This objective
remains of increasing importance with continued development of
international markets for dairy products and technologies. The
University researchers anticipate that work currently in progress will
be completed by September 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The Babcock Institute undergoes two independent review
processes each year. The first is done by a committee of university and
industry representatives who review the annual research proposal and
amend it prior to submission to the agency. The annual proposal is
reviewed by agency technical staff prior to approval for fund release.
In addition, the institute was included in a comprehensive review of
the programs of the Department of Dairy Science at the University of
Wisconsin in May 1995. The agency project officer has conducted two on-
site reviews of the institute since it's formation in 1992. The most
recent review has found that the approach proposed by the researchers
is appropriate and that the researchers are well qualified to perform
the objectives as stated.
barley feed for rangeland cattle, montana
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Barley Feed for Rangeland Cattle, Montana grant.
Response. This project will support research on the nutritional
value of barley cultivars as feed for beef cattle. This effort will
assist with the breeding and selection of superior types that can be
more competitive with other feed grains and improve farmer income from
barley crops grown in rotational systems in the Northern Great Plains.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Barley as a feed grain is grown extensively in the United
States. Based on chemical analyses and the experience of some cattle
feeders the principal researcher believes it should have a feed value
on par with corn and wheat. However, it is listed as inferior to both
in feeds hand books and is therefore discounted in the market.
Comprehensive feeding studies of various barley types will be conducted
to document the value as a feed grain for beef cattle.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to determine the
true feed value of barley for feeder cattle, and thereby improve the
economic return to barley production.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1996 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1996 was $250,000, and for
fiscal year 1997 is $500,000. The total appropriation is $750,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The Montana State Agricultural Experiment Station is
estimated to provide $30,000 in staff time and operational funds toward
this project. The PI has generated an additional $130,000 of grant
funding to support the work.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at Montana State University.
Mr. Skeen. When was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The project is proposed for completion following fiscal
year 2001. Progress toward the objectives have been reported by the
principal researcher.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
Response. The project was peer reviewed in 1996 and judged to be
scientifically sound and appropriate for the stated objectives.
biodiesel research, missouri
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the biodiesel research grant.
Response. Research on biodiesel involves examining the feasibility
of producing biodiesel and other higher value products from oilseed
crops including soybeans, canola, sunflower and industrial rapeseed. It
also involves identifying and evaluating potential markets for the fuel
and other products. An important thrust is to identify how biodiesel
and other environmentally-friendly products can help meet state and
federal environmental mandates of reduced air and water pollution. The
project is also evaluating local processing plants whereby farmers
could produce crops, process the crops locally and use the fuel and
high protein feed coproducts on their farms or locally.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The initial work is being done in Missouri. The results
may provide the agricultural community with alternative crops and more
diverse markets, additional marketable products and a locally grown
source of fuel. This may result in increased investment in local
communities, additional jobs, and increased value added in the farm and
rural community sectors. The principal investigator believes this
research to be of local, regional and national importance.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goals were to examine the feasibility of producing
biodiesel and other higher value products from oilseed crops, plus to
increase the value of coproducts. Results indicate that biodiesel can
be produced most economically from soybeans, primarily because of the
high value of soybean meal. Research indicates that with a community
based biodiesel processing plant, costs of production could be as low
as $0.59 per gallon, although farmers might increase revenues by
selling the soybean oil rather than using it to produce biodiesel.
Since small quantities of biodiesel regularly sell for $4.00 to $9.00
per gallon, the structure of the production, marketing and
transportation is currently under evaluation to identify more efficient
and less costly ways to produce and market biodiesel. Also, a study of
which markets might provide the best opportunity to use increased
levels of biodiesel is underway. Such markets might include underground
mining and the marine industry in addition to urban mass transit
systems and cities having problems meeting more stringent air quality
mandates. Research results indicate that for each one million gallons
of biodiesel used in a B20 blend (20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent
petroleum-based diesel) by the Kansas City, Missouri, transit fleet
would have the following estimated impacts: almost 100 additional jobs;
increased investment of $500,000; net increase in personal income of
$3.2 million; and increase in total economic activity in the region of
$9.6 million. Research has also identified that rapeseed meal compares
favorably to soybean meal and blood meal as an animal feed. It has a
higher escape protein value than soybean meal. This research is carried
out in close cooperation and coordination with other state and federal
agencies, plus trade associations such as the National Biodiesel Board,
the United Soybean Board, American Soybean Association, and others.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 1996?
Response. The work began by this program began in fiscal 1993, and
the appropriation for that year was $50,000. The appropriation for 1994
was $141,000; and for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 was $152,000 annually.
A total of $495,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The source of non-federal funds is state appropriated
funds. The level in 1994 was $7,310. The funding level 1995 was
$74,854. Additionally, some work funded by this grant has been
conducted in cooperation with the National Biodiesel Board, plus the
Missouri Soybean Merchandising Council. The level of those matching
funds for these two sources are not available.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work is being carried out at the University of
Missouri-Columbia.
Mr. Skeen. When do the principal researchers carrying out this work
anticipate that the work will be complete?
Response. The principals estimate that the work with biodiesel will
require an additional two years to complete. Additionally, the work on
higher value products, such as solvents from biodiesel, is expected to
be on-going. Successes with the higher value products will help make
bio-based business more profitable, thus increasing chances for success
which will result in more value added opportunities for farmers and
rural communities.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The CSREES agency scientist reviews the annual proposal
submissions to evaluate progress to date.
biotechnology, oregon
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Biotechnology Oregon grant.
Response. Research that has been funded under the Biotechnology
Oregon project includes the use of nematodes for biocontrol of insect
pests; development of bacterial vectors for vaccines and food
additives; resistance to crown gall disease in plants; enhancement of
anthocyanin pigments in plants, and enzymes for degrading lignin and
wood waste.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the research funding is
requested to enhance the biotechnology research infrastructure in basic
and applied biotechnology within the cooperating institutions, Oregon
State University, the University of Oregon, and the Oregon Graduate
Institute of Science and Technology.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of the program is to improve the biotechnology
research infrastructure, to foster research discoveries, and to develop
technologies that lead to agricultural applications. Preference is
given to research that has potential for commercial development in the
near future and that has the potential for additional funding from
other sources. Five research projects in the areas mentioned above were
funded under the grant in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1996, and the appropriation for fiscal year 1996 was $217,000, and for
fiscal year 1997 is $250,000. A total of $467,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. In fiscal year 1995, the State of Oregon appropriated
$1,226,706 for biotechnology research at Oregon State University. For
fiscal year 1996, non-federal support amounted to $303,100, mostly from
the private sector.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The research is being carried out at three cooperating
institutions, Oregon State University, the University of Oregon, and
the Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. Both the overall grant and the individual research
projects funded under it are funded on a two-year basis. The
Biotechnology Oregon grant was first awarded in 1996 and the
anticipated completion date is July 31, 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency has not yet received the Biotechnology Oregon
proposal for fiscal year 1997. The project was last evaluated for
scientific merit by a Peer Review Panel in the spring of 1996. The
panel recommended approval without change in the research approach and
plans.
broom snakeweed
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Broom Snakeweed, New Mexico grant.
Response. Current research addresses several areas for broom
snakeweed control, including efforts to understanding more fully the
onset of invasion and persistence of broom snakeweed, evaluate the
toxicology and physiological effects of broom snakeweed on livestock,
and develop an integrated weed management approach for broom snakeweed.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Broom snakeweed is a serious weed in the southwestern
United States and adjacent Western States. About 22 percent of
rangeland in Texas, and 60 percent in New Mexico, is infested to some
degree by the weed. Current cost for control of broom snakeweed in the
southwestern United States is estimated at over $41 million. Dense
broom snakeweed stands cause significant economic losses in the plains,
prairie and desert areas of the central and southwestern United States.
Snakeweed is a poisonous plant causing death and abortion in livestock
and reduced productivity of associated vegetation.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. Ground surveys have been conducted statewide from 1989 to
map snakeweed distribution and relative density patterns throughout
every county in New Mexico. This project is in its fourth research
year. A Geographic Information System--GIS--approach is used to relate
snakeweed populations to plant communities and soil type in areas where
snakeweed is particularly dense. Research is addressing three general
areas which are, first, ecology and management; second, biological
control studies; and third, toxicology and animal health research. A
considerable amount of useful research and practical application has
resulted from this special grant. As an example, in biological control,
several plant pathogens and insects are proving to be effective in
snakeweed's control. Another area of emphasis has been grazing
management techniques and feeding studies to minimize toxicological
effects on livestock. Feeding trials have demonstrated that snakeweed
ingestion at 10 percent of diet did not impair fertility or semen
characteristics in the test animal which was male rats.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $100,000; fiscal year 1990, $148,000; fiscal
year 1991, $150,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993, $200,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $188,000; fiscal years 1995 and 1996, $169,000 each
year; and fiscal year 1997, $175,000. A total of $1,499,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $249,251 state appropriations in 1991; $200,110 state
appropriations in 1992; $334,779 state appropriations in 1993; $302,793
state appropriations in 1994; $294,451 state appropriations in 1995;
and an estimated $300,000 in state appropriations in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at New Mexico State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The project was initiated in 1989. Currently additional
and related objectives have evolved and the anticipated completion date
for these is 1999. Considerable progress has been made on many of the
objectives. Anticipated completion date of the additional and related
objectives that have resulted based on the current work would indicate
another five years.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Each year the grant is peer reviewed and reviewed by
CSREES's senior scientific staff. A summary of those reviews indicated
progress in achieving the objectives.
canola research special grant, kansas state university
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Canola Research grant.
Response. Rapeseed lines from around the world are being evaluated
for increased winter hardiness. Elite lines are being used to develop
canola germplasm lines that will survive the winter in the central
Great Plains. This will be accomplished using a plant breeding program.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The domestic demand for canola oil has been increasing
rapidly. With little domestic production, most of the demand has been
met by imports. Private seed companies are not devoting time or money
to develop the cultivars needed for canola production in Kansas and
central Great Plains. Oil seed crushing facilities in the region are
shutting down for several months each year due to a lack of sunflowers/
soybeans grown in the area. A canola harvest in July would precede the
sunflower or soybean harvest by three months, help crushing facilities
continue crushing during this slow period, and maintain jobs. A canola
industry in the area would also help spread the risk of the producers
into more than just a small grain commodity base and into the oilseed
market. Germplasm developed at Kansas State University is being
evaluated from Virginia and Georgia to Wyoming and Texas and may help
develop an industry in other areas of the country. The principal
researcher believes this research to be of national, regional or local
need.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to collect germplasm with increased
winter hardiness and use it to develop cultivars with sufficient winter
survivability to be grown in the central Great Plains. At present,
nearly 700 rapeseed and canola quality lines have been acquired and
tested. The hardiest have been used as parents to produce lines. In the
past five years, over 800 crosses have been made. Field and laboratory
testing began during the fall of 1993. In 1993-94, advanced selections
from these populations had a 30% increase in winter survival over the
best released cultivars in western Kansas and in environments where
winter survival was not a factor, these same lines had a 20% yield
advantage over the best released cultivars. In 1994-95 this germplasm
was tested at 12 locations in seven states throughout the Great Plains
and Midwest. Over all locations, several experimental lines that have
shown increased winter hardiness in past years had yields equal to the
best cultivars used as checks. The winter of 1995-96 had been severe in
the Great Plains as well as most of the country. Severe winter kill is
expected in the breeding nurseries with only the hardiest plants
surviving. Advanced lines continued to demonstrate a winter survival
advantage over previously released cultivars. Over the next several
years, surviving plants will be advanced and those lines possessing
superior traits will become the basis of our second generation of
released cultivars. In 1995, KS3579 was released to other breeders as a
germplasm. This line has shown significant improvement in winter
hardiness and will be beneficial in increasing winter hardiness in
canola cultivars around the world. A canola quality rapeseed cultivar
is planned for release in the summer of 1997. It will be used as the
basis for establishing production in south central Kansas, as well as
other areas of the Great Plains.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Work began on this project in 1992. Funding for fiscal
year 1992 and fiscal year 1993, was $100,000 per year; fiscal year 1994
were $94,000; and fiscal years 1995 through 1997 were $85,000 each. A
total of $549,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Kansas State University has provided $44,960 in fiscal
year 1992, $21,321 in fiscal year 1993, and $22,336 in fiscal year
1994, $23,399 in fiscal year 95, $24,513 in fiscal year 96 and $25,679
in fiscal year 97. An additional $50,000 was provided through a grant
from Dane G. Hansen Foundation for fiscal years 1993-1995.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work is being conducted at Kansas State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agronomy. The primary
research site is at Manhattan with additional field locations at
Hutchinson, Hays, Colby, Belleville, Kingman, Garden City and Parsons,
Kansas. Germplasm developed by Kansas State University is also being
cooperatively tested by researchers in Texas, Missouri, Colorado,
Nebraska, Illinois, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
Mr. Skeen. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The original objectives were to develop the factors
needed to establish canola production in Kansas and the Central Great
Plains. The primary concern addressed by this project was the lack of
cultivars adapted to the area. Advanced selections adapted for the
growing conditions of the great Plains and representing a significant
improvement in both winter hardiness and yield potential for our unique
environment, are being developed. Foundation seed of the best of these
lines will be increased over the 1996-97 growing season and released to
certified seed growers in 1997. Industrial groups have been
instrumental in developing a market for the area. Improved germplasm in
the early generations continues to be identified so progress and
cultivar improvement can continue. The average time between the initial
cross and a released variety is 8 to 10 years. The first crosses made
at Kansas State University were in 1993. Germplasm that is currently
targeted for improvement will be released in 2007.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project:
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This project is reviewed annually, based upon the annual
progress report and presentation at the Southern Extension and Research
Activity Information Exchange Group for oilseeds (SERA-IEG-11). The
review is conducted by the cognizant staff scientist who has determined
that the research is in accordance with the mission of the agency.
center for animal health and productivity, pennsylvania
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Center for Animal Health and Productivity grant.
Response. This research is designed to reduce nutrient transfer to
the environment surrounding dairy farms in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Progress to date includes the development of a individual
dairy cow model which will predict absorbed amino acids and the loss of
nitrogen in manure. This model has been developed into user friendly
software so that trained farm advisors can evaluate herd nutrient
management status while on site. A whole farm model has been developed
which integrates feeding and agronomic practices to predict utilization
of nitrogen and farm surpluses. Using these tools, a survey of dairy
farms in the region has been done to assess nitrogen status on dairy
farms and potential management practices to reduce nitrogen excesses on
dairy farms. Refinement of the model tools and research to refine
estimates of the environmental fate of excess nitrogen from dairy farms
is in progress.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that reducing non-point
pollution of ground and surface water by nitrogen from intensive
livestock production units is of concern, and especially in sensitive
ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay. This research is designed to find
alternative feeding and cropping systems which will reduce net nutrient
flux on Pennsylvania dairy farms to near zero.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research remains the
development of whole farm management systems which will reduce nutrient
losses to the external environment to near zero. To date the
researchers have developed their own models to more accurately
formulate rations for individual dairy cows which permit the comparison
of alternative feeding programs based upon both maximal animal
performance and minimal nutrient losses in animal waste. This model is
being tested on select commercial dairy farms to evaluate the extent to
which total nitrogen losses in manure can be reduced without impacting
economic performance of the farm. At the same time, whole farm nutrient
models have been developed to evaluate alternative cropping systems
which will make maximum use of nutrients from animal waste and minimize
nutrient flux from the total farm system. These tools are currently
being used to survey the current status of nutrient balance on farms in
the area and efforts to fine tune the tools are in progress.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. A grant has been awarded from funds appropriated in
fiscal year 1993 for $134,000 and in fiscal year 1994 for $126,000. In
fiscal years 1995-1997, $113,000 has been appropriated each year. A
total of $599,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. This information is not available at the present time.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of
Pennsylvania, College of Veterinary Medicine.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The University researchers anticipate that work currently
underway will be completed by September 1998. This will complete the
original objectives of the research.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The Center for Animal Health and Productivity project was
last reviewed in June 1996. An on site review by agency technical staff
was conducted in June 1995. It was concluded that project objectives
are within the goals of the program, are within the mission of both the
USDA and CSREES, and the institution is well equipped and qualified to
carry out the research project.
center for innovative food technology, ohio
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Center for Innovative Food Technology grant.
Response. Funds from the fiscal year 1996 grant are supporting
research projects on using neural network/fuzzy logic tools to develop
a model of a growing and processing cycle for processing tomatoes,
developing specifications for a system and to optimize the techniques
necessary to satisfactorily package products sterilized non-thermally
with pulsed electric field systems, to demonstrate whether an
ultrasonic washing appliance has the capacity to kill common foodborne
pathogens or modify it to do so, to demonstrate the feasibility of
using enzyme linked immunosorbent assays in the measurement of
pesticides in Great Lakes fish, to refine and optimize the performance
of a prototype turkey deboning system, to develop a vision based
inspection system for baked goods, and to develop electrostatic coating
processes for applying powdered materials to food products.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the value-added food
processing industry is the largest industry in Midwestern states,
including Ohio where the industry contributes over $17 billion to the
annual economy. From an economic development point of view, processing
and adding value to crops grown within a region is the largest possible
stimulus to that region's total economic product. This program aims to
partner with and encourage small and medium sized companies to
undertake innovative research that might otherwise not be undertaken
due to risk aversion and limited financial resources for research and
development in these companies.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the research was to develop
innovative processing techniques to increase food safety and quality or
reduce processing costs. The neural network project has led to a model
that will be used to relate growing and processing variables to product
quality, resulting in higher product quality at lower cost. The pulsed
electric field sterilization program has demonstrated the ability to
produce high quality products with extended shelf stability. The
research on immunosorbent assays has demonstrated benefits, beyond the
original scope of the project, to the poultry industry by providing an
inexpensive and timely method for measuring residual pesticide levels
in turkeys. The coating project has generated several applications
where the shelf life of products can be extended.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1995. The project received appropriations of $181,000 in fiscal years
1995 through 1997. A total of $543,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. In fiscal year 1995, non-federal funds included $26,000
from state funds and $70,000 from industry memberships. In fiscal year
1996, non-federal funds included $26,000 in state funds and $80,000 in
industry funds.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted in the laboratories of the
Ohio State University and at various participating companies in Ohio,
Illinois, and Pennsylvania.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. The principal investigator anticipates that some projects
supported by the fiscal year 1996 grant will have been completed by
February 28, 1997, while other projects will not be completed until
February 28, 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of
the proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual
basis. Since the agency has not yet received the proposal in support of
the fiscal year 1997 proposal, the last review of the proposal was
conducted on January 22, 1996. At that time, the agency science
specialist believed that the projects addressed issues relevant to food
manufacturing, were scientifically sound, and that satisfactory
progress was being demonstrated using previously awarded grant funds.
center for rural studies, vermont
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Center for Rural Studies grant.
Response. The University is developing and refining social and
economic indicators used to evaluate the impact of economic development
programming and activities. They are also perfecting a delivery format
for technical assistance for community and small business development.
A major focus of current research relates to utilizing the World Wide
Web as a major delivery vehicle.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that the database and
analytical capability provide technical indicators and timely
information to support entrepreneurial and community development
activities in the State. The program is conducted in concert with other
University and State agency outreach activities.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to create a database and analytical
capability for rural development in Vermont. Examples of past
accomplishments include thematic maps presented to help target child
hunger programs and target places for programmatic intervention;
analytical reports provided to guide the development of retail shopping
areas; a reference volume, ``Economic Handbook for Vermont Counties,''
produced for public distribution to help Vermont citizens and leaders
answer the most frequently asked questions about their State and
counties; currently utilizing the World Wide Web to disseminate
information and technical assistance.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1992 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $37,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994, $35,000; and fiscal years 1995-97, $32,000, for
a total of $205,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Prior to receipt of any Federal funds in fiscal year
1991, the Center was supported by $91,130 in State and other non-
federal funds. In fiscal year 1992, these funds increased to $101,298
and to $143,124 in fiscal year 1993. The amount of non-federal dollars
was $3,547 for fiscal years 1995-1996 and $2,931 in fiscal year 1997
plus researcher's salary.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of Vermont.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original completion date was September 30, 1993. The
original objectives of the research project have been met. The
completion of additional objectives is scheduled for August 31, 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates merit of research proposals as
submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been conducted.
chesapeake bay aquaculture, maryland
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research funded
under the Chesapeake Bay Aquaculture grant.
Response. The objective of this research is to improve the culture
of striped bass through genetics, reproductive biology, nutrition,
health management, waste management and product quality. The research
provides a balance between basic and applied research.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the Mid-Atlantic region
of the country has significant opportunities to contribute to the
overall development of the domestic aquaculture industry. Research
supported through this program can have broad application and enhance
production efficiency and the sustainability of aquaculture as a form
of production agriculture.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original research goal was to generate new knowledge
that can be utilized by the aquaculture industry to address problems
limiting the expansion of the industry in Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic
region. The program focuses on closing the life cycle of the striped
bass and its hybrids, enhancing production efficiency, and improving
product quality under aquaculture conditions. Research is conducted in
the areas of growth, reproduction and development, aquacultural
systems, product quality, and aquatic animal health. Researchers are
currently evaluating the performance of triploid striped bass. Progress
has been made in developing controlled artificial spawning techniques
and refining the nutritional requirements of striped bass. Scientists
continue studies to characterize waste production as a function of
feeding levels to reduce waste generation in striped bass production
systems.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported under this grant began in fiscal year
1990 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1990 was $370,000. The
fiscal years 1991-1993 was $437,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$411,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997 $370,000, each year. A total of
$3,202,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The university reports the amount of non-federal funding
for this program is as follows: in fiscal years 1991 and 1992,
$200,000; in fiscal years 1993 and 1994, $175,000; in fiscal year 1995
$400,000; and in fiscal year 1996 $536,000. The university reports that
these funds are from direct state appropriations and other non-federal
funding sources.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of
Maryland.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The original specific research objectives were to be
completed in 1993. These specific research objectives have been met.
The specific research outlined in the current proposal will be
completed in fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to submit an accomplishment
report when the new proposal is submitted to CSREES for funding. The
1996 review indicated the proposal was well written with objectives
clearly stated, that adequate progress had been reported on previous
work, and that the scientific expertise is appropriate for the proposed
research.
coastal cultivars
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Coastal Cultivars grant.
Response. This project will be undertaken to identify new
ornamental, fruit, and vegetable crops for the lower coastal plain of
Georgia and develop management systems for profitable production. This
effort is designed to improve the rural economy and to help supply an
expanding market for the products in that region and possibly beyond.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The proposal research under this project has regional
significance for coastal zone land in the South Eastern U.S. on
potential new plants for the growing market for ornamentals and
speciality fruits and vegetables for the area.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to identify new
plant cultivars to provide alternative crops with economic potential to
the coastal area.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1997 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is $200,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. No funds have been expended to date.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at the University of Georgia
coastal garden.
Mr. Skeen. When was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The project is projected for three years duration and,
therefore, should be completed following fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The proposal is currently being evaluated for the fiscal
year 1996 funding increment.
competitiveness of agriculture products, washington
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Competitiveness of Agriculture Products research
grant?
Response. This grant improves the global competitiveness of value-
added agricultural and forest products produced in the Pacific
Northwest region. It identifies and conducts needed research and
disseminates the results through various activities such as trade
shows, international conferences, and a variety of media. Research
focuses on foreign market assessments, product development, and policy
and trade barriers. Particular attention has been paid to developing
the technology that can add value to U.S. agricultural and forest
products in order to make U.S. exports more competitive.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researchers believe that rural economic
development and growth of the Pacific Northwest region is dependent
upon the ability of the agricultural and forest product sectors to
penetrate overseas markets, especially in Pacific Rim countries. Japan
and China present especially attractive prospects for evolving U.S.
food and forest products exports.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goals were to develop export markets for
value-added food and forest products produced in the Pacific Northwest
and to improve competitiveness of these industries.
Research at Washington State University's International Marketing
Program for Agricultural Commodities and Trade enables Pacific
Northwest producers to grow and export Asian and other products never
before produced in this country on a commercial basis. The Center
identified export opportunities in East Asia and elsewhere and has
developed production and marketing systems for Wagyu beef, azuki beans,
edamame soybean, and wasabi radish, to name a few. Other promising
products are in the pipeline leading toward commercialization. The
Center is also developing economical and environmentally-friendly food
processing techniques. It searches for scientific solutions to trade
barriers. It monitors progress in multilateral trade agreements,
leading to opportunities for trade liberalization.
Research at the University of Washington's Center for International
Trade in Forest Products has helped open the Japanese housing market to
U.S. exports. The Center hosted a significant housing export conference
in Seattle in September 1996 at which the Ambassador Walter Mondale and
Japanese officials agreed to what has been a major breakthrough in U.S.
export opportunities. Japanese builders have benefited from the
Center's research. They have been taught how to lower their costs by
using U.S. building techniques and products. Value-added exports have
grown 200 percent since 1989 as Japan deregulated its housing market
after recognizing the opportunities set forth by this research. Other
research at the Center developed export and marketing information for
prefabricated housing, red cedar, substitute products, Russia/China
trade potential, impact of climate change on competitiveness, U.S./
Canadian trade, and impact of Western supply constraints on Southern
forest products markets.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1992. The appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $800,000 each
year; fiscal year 1994, $752,000; and fiscal years 1995-97, $677,000
each year. A total of $4,383,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Robinson. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $716,986 State appropriations, $209,622 product sales,
$114,000 industry, and $661,119 miscellaneous for a total of $1,701,727
in 1991; $727,345 State appropriations, $114,581 product sales,
$299,000 industry, and $347,425 miscellaneous for a total of $1,488,351
in 1992; $1,259,437 State appropriations, $55,089 product sales,
$131,000 industry, and $3,000 miscellaneous for a total of $1,448,526
in 1993; $801,000 State appropriations, $1,055,000 product sales,
$1,040,000 industry, and $244,000 miscellaneous for a total of
$3,140,000 in 1994; $810,000 state appropriations, $42,970 product
sales, $785,000 industry, and $2,000,000 gift of a ranch due to the
IMPACT Center's research on Wagyu Cattle, for a total of $3,637,870 in
1995; and $844,000 State appropriations, $45,000 product sales,
$900,000 industry, and $45,000 miscellaneous for a total of $1,789,000
in 1996. The preliminary allocation for 1997 is $1,305,000 state
appropriations, $92,000 product sales, $1,000,000 industry, and $85,000
miscellaneous for a total of $2,542,000.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The research program is being carried out by the
International Marketing Program for Agricultural Commodities and Trade
at Washington State University, Pullman, and the Center for
International Trade in Forest Products at the University of Washington,
Seattle.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. This is a continuing program of research with long-term,
crop and animal improvement projects, and long-term agricultural and
forest products market development projects. As projects are completed,
new projects are begun. Some of the new projects can be completed by
2000, but some improvement and development projects will take much
longer to reach their full potential. Objectives have been met for
certain products in certain markets, but unmet opportunities abound.
With the exception of the improvement projects, most of the work can be
completed by 2000.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
Response. Projects are evaluated annually through review of
progress reports and periodically through more extensive review. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture reviewed the Washington State University
project in 1991. The University of Washington Center is just completing
a formal 5-year review. The report will be available early in 1997. In
addition, the Center made comprehensive use of a broadly-construed
Executive Board having industry, agency, and academic representation to
review quarterly accomplishment reports and suggest additional
activities. The last formal on-site Departmental review was in 1991,
but the Department reviews the project annually and participates in the
quarterly Executive Board reviews.
cool season legume research
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Cool Season Legume Research grant.
Response. The Cool Season Legume Research Program involves projects
to improve efficiency and sustainability of pea, lentil, chickpea and
fava bean cropping systems collaborative research. Scientist from seven
states where these crops are grown have developed cooperative research
projects directed toward crop improvement, crop protection, crop
management and human nutrition product development.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the original goal of
this project was to improve efficiency and sustainability of cool
season food legumes through an integrated collaborative research
program and genetic resistance to important virus diseases in peas and
lentils. Evaluation studies of biocontrol agents for root disease
organisms on peas are underway. Other studies are evaluating
integration of genetic resistance and chemical control. Considerable
progress has been made using biotechnology to facilitate gene
identification and transfer. Management system studies have addressed
tillage and weed control issues.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991 with appropriations for fiscal year 1991 of $375,000; fiscal year
1992 and 1993 $387,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $364,000; fiscal
year 1995, $103,000; fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $329,000. A total of
$2,274,000 have been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The nonfederal funds provided for this grant were as
follows: 1991, $304,761 state appropriations, $14,000 industry, and
$18,071 other nonfederal; 1992, $364,851 state appropriations, $15,000
industry, and $14,000 other nonfederal; 1993, $400,191 state
appropriations, $19,725 industry, and $10,063, other nonfederal, and
1994, $147,607 nonfederal support. Nonfederal support for 1995 was
$150,607 and for 1996 it was $386,887.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research has been conducted at agricultural experiment
stations in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York
and New Hampshire. The funds have been awarded competitively among
participating states and not all states receive funds each year.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The projected duration of the initial project was five
years.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation?
Response. The steering committee made up of growers, industry
representatives and scientist review this project annually for merit
relevance. Each annual proposal is made up of sub projects that have
peer reviewed and selected to address priority issues within each of
the broad objectives. The combined project is reviewed by CSREES before
funds are awarded.
cranberry-blueberry disease and breeding, new jersey
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Cranberry-Blueberry Disease and Breeding, New
Jersey grant.
Response. This work has focused on identification and monitoring of
insect pests on blueberries and cranberries, the identification,
breeding, and incorporation of superior germplasm into horticulturally-
desirable genotypes, identification and determination of several fungal
fruit-rotting species, and identification of root-rot resistant
cranberry genotypes. Overall, research has focused on the attainment of
cultural management methods that are environmentally compatible, while
reducing blueberry and cranberry crop losses.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. This project involves diseases having major impacts on
New Jersey's cranberry and blueberry industries, but the findings here
are being shared with experts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New England.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was the development of cranberry and
blueberry cultivars compatible with new disease and production
management strategies. Last year, over 75 blueberry selections were
moved into advanced testing, and wild blueberry accessions resistant to
secondary mummy berry infections were identified. The biology and
seasonal life history of spotted fireworm on cranberry was determined.
A pheromone trap-based monitoring system for cranberry fruitworm was
developed and further refined for commercialization in 1997. Blueberry
fruit volatiles attractive to blueberry maggot were identified and
tested in the field. Seven major fungal fruit-rotting species were
identified, and their incidence in 10 major cultivars of blueberry and
blueberry were determined, and it is likely that resistance to fruit
rots is specific to fungal species. Researchers identified about 20
root rot-resistant cranberry genotypes in an artificially inoculated
field trial.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriately by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $100,000; fiscal years 1986-1987, $95,000
per year; fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $260,000 per year; fiscal year
1990, $275,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $260,000 per year; fiscal year
1994, $244,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $220,000 each year. A total
of $2,769,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. State and other non-federal sources are providing funds
in the amount of $93,970 for this grant in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted at the New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been meet?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the original
objectives was 1995. Those objectives have not been met. To complete
the breeding, disease and insect management and provision of new
management guidelines for extension and crop consultants, it is
estimated that an additional three to nine years will be required.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The last agency evaluation of this project occurred in
December, 1996. In summary, the evaluation state that the effort has
continued to be highly productive, with various improved management
strategies, plant material and environmentally-balanced pesticides
being areas of major impact.
critical issues
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Critical Issues Special Research Grant.
Response. These grant funds support research on critical issues
impacting agriculture that require immediate attention. These funds are
intended to initiate research efforts until other resources can be
secured to address the critical issues. This program started in fiscal
year 1996 when one half of our Critical Issues funds were allocated to
initiate research on potato late blight, which is caused by a fungus, a
new strain of which has spread through the nation causing extensive
crop losses. The objective is to have a better understanding of the
fungus to enable scientists to predict and manage outbreaks with an
integrated pest management program. The other half of our 1996 Critical
Issues funds were allocated to initiate research on vesicular
stomatitis, a disease of horses, cattle, and swine which has symptoms
very similar to those of food and mouth disease. Livestock producers
are concerned about the potential adverse impact of quarantine measures
as a result of the spread of this disease. The objective is to develop
a better understanding of the disease so more effective control
measures can be used.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. Both potato late blight and vesicular stomatitis have
national impact of a critical nature and are therefore both very high
priority efforts.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. Six research proposals have been funded to address potato
late blight, and scientists have initiated their work on aspects of
this epidemic. The first North American Late Blight Workshop was
convened which involved potato growers and processors, national potato
organizations, university scientists, and the chemical industry. The
major contribution of this workshop was the resulting set of
recommendations for short- and long-term efforts need to solve this
problem, and workshop organizers set up an Internet homepage which
invites dialogue on research and education needs for the management of
late blight.
Two research proposals have been funded to address vesicular
stomatitis, which was identified as the highest priority problem in
1996 in discussions with commodity groups, regulatory veterinarians and
colleagues in ARS and APHIS. Work has been initiated under the two
funded projects which are now focusing on transmission of the virus.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Response. $200,000 was appropriated in both fiscal years 1996 and
1997 for a total appropriation of $400,000 to date.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. This information is not currently available.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Potato late blight work is being carried out at
Washington State University, Oregon State University, the University of
Idaho, the University of Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania State University.
Vesicular stomatitis work is being carried out at Colorado State
University and the University of Arizona.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The Critical Issues funds are intended to support the
initiation of research on issues requiring immediate attention until
other, long-term, resources can be secured. The objectives of the
projects supported with these funds are short-term and are therefore
expected to be met within 1-2 years.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
Response. All projects were reviewed for scientific merit before
funding decisions were made. Also, scientists whose work on potato late
blight and vesicular stomatitis is supported with Critical Issues
funding are in close contact with CSREES' National Program Leaders so
that the agency is kept abreast of developments as they occur.
dairy and meat goat research, prairie view a&m, texas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the dairy goat research grant?
Response. The program has addressed a range of issues associated
with goat production. Research by scientists at the International Dairy
Goat Center, Prairie View A&M University focuses on problems affecting
goat production in the United States. Issues included are the study of
nutritional requirements of goats, disease problems, methods to improve
reproductive efficiency in the doe, the use of gene transfer to improve
caprine genetics and the evaluation of breeding schemes to improve meat
and milk production. Currently, research is in progress to develop a
decision aid for use by small farmers engaged in dairy and meat goat
production in the gulf coast region in order to ensure incorporation of
realistic enterprise budget information in their planning process.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that nationally, most
of the farm enterprises that include goats are diverse and maintain a
relatively small number of animals. Responding to disease, nutrition,
breeding and management problems will improve efficiency of production
and economic returns to the enterprise.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to conduct
research that will lead to improvement in goat production among the
many small producers in the United States. Research has been conducted
to develop and improve nutritional standards, improve genetic lines for
meat and milk production and to define mechanisms that impede
reproductive efficiency in goats. Current efforts focus on the
development of enterprise budget management tools for goat producers in
the Texas gulf coast region.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded through appropriated funds as
follows: $100,000 per year for fiscal years 1983-85; $95,000 per year
for fiscal years 1986-88; no funds were appropriated in fiscal year
1989; $74,000 for fiscal year 1990; $75,000 per year for fiscal years
1991-1993; $70,000 for fiscal year 1994; and $63,000 per year for
fiscal years 1995-1997. A total of $1,143,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The University reports no non-federal funds expended on
this program.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at Prairie View A&M
University in Texas.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The overall objective of this research is to support the
needs of small farms engaged in the production of meat and milk from
goats along the Texas Gulf Coast. The university researchers continue
to address those needs on an annual basis and anticipate that work
currently in progress will be completed by the end of fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The Dairy/Meat Goat Research grant was reviewed last in
June 1996. The project objectives are within the goals of the program,
are within the mission of both USDA and CSREES, and the institution is
well equipped and qualified to carry out the research project.
delta rural revitalization, mississippi
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Center for Rural Studies grant.
Response. The project has gone through several phases in the
delineation of a strategy for a long-range development plan for the
Mississippi Delta region. Phase I was completed with the delivery of a
baseline assessment of the economic, social and political factors that
enhance or impede the advancement of the region. Phase II of the
project evaluated the potential for entrepreneurship and small business
creation as mechanisms to improve economic conditions. Phase III is now
focusing on technical assistance to Delta region manufacturing firms to
strengthen their ability to provide employment and incomes. Continued
emphasis on technical assistance and the development of appropriate
data bases to guide development opportunities.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal research believes that the databases,
technical assistance, and analytical capability will provide more
impact in support of entrepreneurial and community development
activities in the State. The program is conducted in concert with other
University and State agency outreach activities.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to develop an analytical baseline
for the Delta region. A publication titled, ``A Social and Economic
Portrait of the Delta,'' serves as an analytical baseline for further
work. A Delta Inventors Society has been created to assist creative
individuals in developing ideas which can be successfully
commercialized. An Entrepreneurial Forum was established to help new
business ventures with start-up advice and assistance. Finally, a
venture capital association has been formed to help both inventors and
businessmen find capital resources to carry out their plans. The
emphasis of the project has now shifted to technical assistance for
industrial development.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: FY 1989, $175,000; FY 1990, $173,000; FY 1991-1993, $175,000
per year; FY 1994, $164,000; FY 1995-1997, $148,000 per year. A total
of $1,481,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Total non-federal funds directed to this project, as
reported by Mississippi State University, are: FY 1991, $117,866; FY
1992, $84,402; FY 1993, $68,961. Reports for later years are incomplete
at this time.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the Mississippi State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original completion date was September 30, 1990. The
original objectives of the research project have been met. The
completion of additional objective is scheduled for September 30, 1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates merit of research proposals as
submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been conducted.
drought mitigation, nebraska
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Drought Mitigation grant.
Response. This grant supports the National Drought Mitigation
Center program in the Department of Agricultural Meteorology at the
University of Nebraska. The Center is developing a comprehensive
program aimed at lessening societal vulnerability to drought by
promoting and conducting research on drought mitigation and
preparedness technologies, improving coordination of drought-related
activities and actions within and between levels of government, and
assisting in the development, dissemination, and implementation of
appropriate mitigation and preparedness technologies in the public and
private sectors. Emphasis is directed toward research and outreach
projects and mitigation/management strategies and programs that stress
risk minimization measures rather than reactive actions.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes drought is a normal
part of climate for virtually all regions of the United States. The
impacts of drought are diverse and affect the economic, environmental,
and social sectors of society. Almost without exception, the occurrence
of widespread severe drought in the past decade has illustrated the
inadequacy of existing assessment, mitigation, response, and planning
efforts at the federal, state, and local level. Rather than the
``crisis management'' approach of the past, a ``risk management''
approach is needed where the emphasis is on preventive measures,
preparedness, education, and mitigation strategies. Until recently,
little attention has been focused on drought among the long list of
natural hazards that affect our nation. The Center is receiving non-
federal funds in support of this research from the University of
Nebraska.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to create a
National Drought Mitigation Center and develop a comprehensive program
aimed at lessening societal vulnerability to drought. The Center has
created an information clearinghouse for drought mitigation
technologies and associated informational products. This has been
accomplished through the development of a national drought management
information system, an electronic portfolio of information available on
the Internet. About 16,000 users each month connect to the National
Drought Mitigation Center's home page to gather information on drought
conditions and management strategies. This home page was used
extensively by state and federal agencies during the 1996 drought to
assist in the evaluation and response process. This home page networks
potential users of drought-related information in the United States and
elsewhere with information that would otherwise be unavailable or
inaccessible to users.
The National Drought Mitigation Center played an important role in
the response of federal and state government to the 1996 severe drought
in the Southwest and southern Great Plains states. The Center
participated in the Multistate Drought Task Force workshop organized at
the request of President Clinton and helped formulate long-term
recommendations to improve the way this nation prepares and responds to
drought. The Center was also a member of the Western Governors'
Association's Drought Task Force. This task force has also developed
recommendations to reduce the risks associated with the occurrence of
drought in the western United States. The Center is actively involved
with the Western Governor's Association in the implementation of these
recommendations.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant received an
appropriation of $200,000 in fiscal years 1995 through 1997, for a
total appropriation of $600,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The University of Nebraska contributed $75,737 of non-
federal funds in support of this research in fiscal year 1995 and
$58,977 in fiscal year 1996. The University of Nebraska will contribute
$61,545 is fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research will be conducted at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? What is the anticipated completion
date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The research conducted under this project is being
undertaken under a series of 10 tasks that have been addressed, but
these activities are ongoing. The national drought management
information system has been established but much of this work is
continuing in order to expand the information available through the
clearinghouse and to keep it current. For example, the drought watch
section of the Center's home page is updated monthly to provide users
with up-to-date information on water and climate conditions nationwide.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The activities of the Center are continuously evaluated
by users that have access to home page. They provide feedback and
suggestions on a continuous basis. The Center also solicits input on
its program and products at workshops and other meetings in which it
participates.
The Center has established a national advisory committee that
consists of three representatives from state government, one from
federal government, and one from a regional organization. These
committee members are well known for their expertise in drought
management. The purpose of this committee members are well known for
their expertise in drought management. The purpose of this committee is
to provide feedback to the Center on existing products and program
direction. This national advisory committee met twice during 1996 to
advise the director and staff.
environmental research, new york
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the environmental research grant.
Response. The environmental research in New York consists of two
main thrusts which are aimed at understanding the nitrogen flowing from
agricultural activities and their impacts on adjacent ecosystem
components, and the agricultural dimensions of global climate change.
Included in the program are a technology transfer aspect and an
environmental assessment activity.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes there is a need to
understand the impacts of ecosystem components upon each other. As
global change occurs, impacts will become critical.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The main objectives of this program are to identify and
address interactions and feedbacks between agriculture ecosystems,
natural ecosystems, and natural resources which affect the long-term
well being of each. Agroecosystem management strategies that maintain
agricultural productivity and environmental quality will be devised.
Policies will be established for addressing problems at the interface
between agriculture and the environment.
Ongoing program activities are intended to meet the mentioned
objectives. Some examples of projects are as follows: Several aspects
of nitrogen supply interactions with crops and the recovery of
fertilizer nitrogen at crop harvest. Water quality research has been
focused on the relation of intensive animal production areas and
contamination caused by nitrates. Geographic Information System
capability is being developed to evaluate various scenarios regarding
the future of agriculture in broad landscape changes.
In the sixth year of the program, the principal investigators
proposed to substantially complete research on the two main themes of
their program to date, namely nitrogen flows from agricultural
ecosystems to non-agricultural ecosystems and groundwater. A new
project on carbon storage in soils will be added to continuing work on
climate. Continuation of their involvement with the Remington Farms
Sustainable Agriculture Project on the Eastern Shore of Maryland will
extend the results of their nitrogen research programs to other farms.
They will also continue two projects that focus on intervention
strategies to improve management of agricultural systems; one will
explore the potential for reducing herbicide use by using weather
forecasts to predict weed competition, and the second will explore the
use of constructed wetlands to off-set barnyard run-off. The principal
investigators will expand their activities in watershed management by
increasing support to the program that was begun last year.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991 with an appropriation of $297,000. The fiscal years 1992-1993
appropriations was $575,000 per year; $540,000 in fiscal year 1994; and
fiscal years 1995 through 1997, $486,000 each year. A total of
$3,445,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Dr. Robinson. In fiscal year 1991, Cornell University provided
$27,893 and the State of New York provided $118,014. In fiscal year
1992, Cornell University provided $37,476 and the State of New York
$188,915. In fiscal year 1993, Cornell University provided $13,650 and
the State of new York $243,251. In fiscal year 1994, the State of New
York provided $214,989. In fiscal year 1995, the State of New York
provided $233,085. In fiscal year 1996, the State of New York provided
$388,301.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted at Cornell University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original estimate was for a five-year program and
many of the initial objectives in the nitrogen and climate change areas
have been met. New objectives evolved from the original work and the
program was also oriented to consider broader dimensions of
environmental management, particularly strategies for community-based
watershed management, involving linkage of technical knowledge with
social and local governmental perspectives and needs. Estimated
completion dates for current program elements are:
1997-1998 program year: Impacts of Nhx deposition on forests;
Landscape evaluation of denitrification; Nitrogen utilization in
agricultural ecosystems; and, Contributions of agricultural ecosystems
to climate forcing.
1998-1999 program year: Nutrient processing wetlands; Use of
weather forecasts in weed management; Use of constructed wetlands to
remediate barnyard run-off; Effect of climate variability on crop
production; and Carbon storage in soils.
Completion beyond 1999: Watershed science and management; Effects
of elevated CO2 on crop yield potential; and Remington farms
sustainable ag. project (a 10-year project).
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates this project through the review of
an annual proposal submission.
environmental risk factors/cancer, new york
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Environmental Risk Factors/Cancer research grant.
Response. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service has requested the university to submit a grant proposal that is
currently being reviewed.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
research?
Response. The American Cancer Society has estimated that over
184,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed with breast cancer
in 1996. The role of environmental risk factors, such as pesticides, is
of concern to women, the agricultural community, and policymakers.
While some data exist in the scientific literature, little has been
done to synthesize and evaluate these studies and make this research
information available to the people who need it--the general public.
This project, emphasizing risk reduction prevention information, will
work at filling that void.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goals of this research are:
1. To establish a database of critical evaluations on the current
scientific evidence of breast carcinogenicity and effects on breast
cancer risk for selected pesticides.
2. To effectively communicate database information to the
scientific community, federal agencies, public health professionals,
the agricultural community, and the general public using innovative
electronic methods of communication, in-service training sessions, and
printed materials.
3. To further develop the Breast Cancer Environmental Risk Factors
World Wide Web to improve ease of use, add informational materials and
hyperlinks, and determine the feasibility of developing an online,
searchable bibliography on pesticides and breast cancer risk accessible
through this Web site.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant is scheduled to begin in
fiscal year 1997. The appropriation requested for fiscal year 1997 is
$93,461.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $150,000 state appropriations for fiscal year 1996;
$250,000 in state funds (New York) has been requested for fiscal year
1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research will be conducted at the Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. This is a new project--not yet funded--scheduled to begin
in April 1997. The anticipated completion date is March 31, 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. As a new project, an evaluation has not been conducted,
although the proposal is currently under review. Periodic progress
reports are made throughout the year. A final evaluation will be made
after March 31, 1998.
expanded wheat pasture, oklahoma
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Expanded Wheat Pasture, Oklahoma grant.
Response. This project was designed to develop improved
supplementation programs and new systems for technology delivery to
reduce production risk of raising cattle on wheat pasture. The work
involves evaluation of grazing termination date on grain and beef
production, assess the impact of wheat cultural practices and develop
an economic model to evaluate alternative decisions on grain/beef
production. Additional effort is directed toward development of cool
season perennial forage grasses to complement wheat pasture. The
proposal for fiscal year 1996 has been received and is being processed.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal research believes that this work addresses
the needs of wheat/cattle producers of Oklahoma as a primary focus.
However, it would appear to have some application regionally in
adjacent states. The principal researcher suggests the research will
indicate mutual benefit to wheat grower and livestock producer.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to develop
economically viable management systems for use of wheat for
supplemental pasture for beef cattle before the crop starts making
grain. This work has already shown how the use of feed supplements can
increase net profit from cattle grazing on wheat pasture. The study has
identified management practices, e.g., date of planting, cultivar
selection, grazing intensity and date of cattle removal that produce
the optimum grain yield and cattle gain. A Wheat/Stocker Management
Model has been developed as a decision aid to help producers assess
income risk in the operation. Work is underway on a Wheat Grazing
Systems simulation model.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1989 and appropriations were as follows: fiscal year 1989, $400,000;
fiscal year 1990, $148,000; fiscal year 1991, $275,000; fiscal years
1992-1993, $337,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $317,000, and fiscal
years 1995-1997, $285,000 each year. A total of $2,669,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The nonfederal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $175,796 state appropriations in 1991; $174,074 state
appropriations in 1992; and $236,584 state appropriations in 1993. The
non-federal support for 1994 was $234,058 for state appropriations.
Funds for FY 1995 were $275,426, and for 1996 were $120,000.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research is being done at Oklahoma State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. This project started in 1989 with a projection of 10
years to complete the research objectives. Some objectives are nearing
completion while others will probably require further study. A number
of wheat cultivars have been identified which will tolerate grazing and
still produce economic grain yields. The grazing cut off date for grain
production has been established. However, year to year variation needs
additional study in order to develop a reliable decision support
system.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This program has not been subjected to a comprehensive
review. However, each year's funding cycle is reviewed internally and
by CSREES scientist for scientific merit and relevance.
expert ipm decision support system
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Response. A prototype information and decision support system was
developed in collaboration with Purdue University and the Department of
Energy's Argonne National Laboratory that integrates and manages
information from multiple data sources. Information on the status of:
EPA review of pesticides, losses caused by pests, status of alternative
tactics, status of minor use registrations, current research in
progress, and priorities of IPM implementation teams are integrated in
the Pest Management Information Decision Support System (PMI/DSS).
Information on the genetic resistance of pests has been planned with
Michigan State University but the resources to implement the plan have
not been available to date. With the information in the current data
base, commodity/pest problem are prioritized using a science-based
logic developed by Argonne National Laboratory personnel based on key
policy concerns. The need for decision support and information is
greater than in the past with the passage of the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996. The act requires the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to place greater reliance on science, dietary exposure to
pesticides, reasonable risks, and emphasis on children's diets and
exposure. The act also recognizes IPM as helping to provide workable
solutions to pesticide problems. The decision support system is
incorporating increased information to address these needs. The data
fields and sources of the data bases that will contribute to additional
information are: Risk Assessments (EPA), Registered Alternatives by
Commodities for pesticides Under EPA Review (EPA Registration Tapes),
Critical Pest Problem with Removal of Suspect Pesticides (State IPM
Teams and NAPIAP State Liaison Coordinators; Commodity Groups), State
Crop Production (U.S. Census), Pesticide Tolerances on Commodities (EPA
Data Bases), Market Basket Residues on Commodities (AMS and EPA
Analyses), Dietary Habits of Adults and Children (1977 data base, and
data bases to be developed), Method of Use and Reduction of Risk (State
IPM Teams and NAPIAP State Liaison Coordinators; Commodity Groups), IPM
Dependence (State IPM Team Data Bases).
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The PMI/DSS serves national, regional, and local needs
for research and extension activities. At the national level, the
system supports the USDA/USEPA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
find alternatives to pesticides under regulatory review or being lost
due to genetic resistance. The data base has identified priorities for
the Pest Management Alternatives request for proposals for the past two
years and interacts with the project system of the IR-4 Minor Use
Registration Program. It also is interacting with the identification of
priorities for research and extension activities in the regional IPM
Special Grant and Special Projects. It provides a mechanism for growers
and grower organizations to interact with the priority process and the
ultimate result is to help insure that farmers have alternatives for
managing pests at the specific local level.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of the PMI/DSS is to refine the process to
identify IPM needs of USDA, EPA, and states by addressing critical
needs, reinforce state and federal partnerships to disseminate
important pest management information for improved decision making,
profitability, and environmental quality, and to address future
applications and needs. In 1996 and 1997, the program addressed
priority commodity pest management needs due to voluntary pesticide
cancellations and regulatory cancellations responding to the MOU and
supplemental MOU between EPA and USDA. The supplemental MOU was signed
in April, 1996. In 1996, there were 58 pesticides and 374 uses
identified and prioritized. The process included information on
cancellations furnished by EPA, selected uses were sent to the states
NAPIAP and IPM network and impacts of cancellations effecting
individual state agriculture reported back for compilation in the
decision support system. The results were used in the 1996 and 1997
request for proposals for the Pest Management Alternatives Program.
Twenty-five minor commodities on which 40 specific pest were identified
in the 1997 request for proposals. This was the first time that we have
identified specific commodity/pest combinations for which proposal were
limited. Results were also used by the regional IPM request for
proposals. As I previously stated, the program is currently addressing
issues associated with the Food Quality Protection Act which increases
the information requirements significantly.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. In fiscal year 1994 we expended $40,000 of CSRESS
administrative funds and $90,000 from Science and Education Evaluation
Funds to initiate collaborative work with the Argonne National
Laboratory. In fiscal year 1995 we expended $172,000 as a Cooperative
Agreement and Purdue University and Argonne National Laboratory from
the Pest Management Alternative Special Grant Funds and $5,000 from
NAPIAP funds. In fiscal year 1996 we expended $177,000 in a cooperative
agreement with Purdue University and Argonne National Laboratory from
Pest Management Alternative Special Grant Funds, $21,000 from Research,
Extension, and Education Evaluation Funds, and $40,000 from NAPIAP
funds (for development of NAPIAP data fields. In fiscal year 1997 we
are expending $165,425 to Purdue University and Argonne National
Laboratory. The total resources to date are $710,425.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. It is difficult for us to estimate the amount of non-
federal funds supporting the Pest Management Information, Decision
Support System. Purdue University and Cornell University have
contributed non federal resources to the oversight of the information,
decision support system as well as a number of states that have
provided information that is part of the information base. Many program
areas are contributing data bases that are run on the Pest Management
Information, Decision Support System.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The bulk of the work is carried out in Washington, D.C.
CSREES has National Program Leaders in IPM, NAPIAP, and IR-4 program
areas working on the Pest Management Information, Decision Support
System. The Argonne National Laboratory has a Washington, D.C. office
where information, decision support personnel are housed and there are
daily interactions between CSREES and other USDA staff personnel on a
daily basis. Interactions and information is provided by every state in
our system. We are in the process of institutionalizing this program by
hiring and assigning dedicated staff to this area.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated complex date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. Our original estimates was two- to three-years with
adequate resources to complete the developmental work. However, the
design considerations become more complex as program needs dictate
expansion of the information base such as the developments under the
Food Quality Protection Act. In addition, the technology is moving so
swiftly that we must continue to do updating. We feel we are reasonably
meeting our objectives with resources that are available. As I
indicated, we are institutionalizing this activity and it will become
an ongoing activity of the agency of increasing importance.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
Response. We have a guidance committee that gives us input on an
ongoing basis. We conduct an annual evaluation of the progress in this
program. A specific technical evaluation was made of the Toulmin-based
logic that underlies the design and decision support process in fiscal
year 1996. It was concluded that this science-based logic has
significant relevance to decision making in agricultural pest
management systems. We are currently developing plans for an intensive
outside review of the system and proposed directions involving
personnel in participating program areas, research and extension
partners, and grower organizations. The review includes World Wide Web
activities and evaluation input from a wide community of users and
potential users.
farm and rural business finance, illinois and arkansas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the farm and rural business finance program.
Response. The long-range plan of work for this program focuses on
three principal areas. One is the financial management and performance
of rural businesses which includes on-going research into financial
management and decisionmaking by farm and argibusiness firms
complemented by evaluation of the performance of existing firms and
training programs for farm and rural business owners. The second area
includes research on financial markets and credit institutions serving
rural America with emphasis on pricing and credit evaluation of loans,
evaluation of credit relationships, identification of key factors
affecting the supply and demand for financial capital, and evaluation
of financial innovations for farm and rural business finance. The third
area addresses the impact of public policies and programs on the
financial health of rural America, measures the effect of regulatory
changes on the performance of financial institutions, evaluates
organizational alternatives for rural credit markets and analyzes the
effects of geographical liberalization of commercial banking on
structure and performance.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes traditional
characteristics of agriculture such as capital intensive businesses,
variable prices and production and seasonality present unique risks
with important implications for the cost and availability of financial
capital for farm and rural businesses. In the present uncertain policy
and budget environment, identification of new sources of financial
capital and innovative programs are essential to enhance the financial
capacity for undertaking rural development programs and responding to
growth opportunities in rural businesses.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal is to assist farmers and rural businesses with
research-based information on financial management as they deal with
changing and increasingly complex financial markets. The program has
completed projects on the financial structure and efficiency of grain
farms, risk and financial implications of vertical coordination in hog
production, commercial bank access to agency market funds through
government sponsored enterprises, and competitive challenges for
bankers in financing agriculture. Additional projects in various stages
of completion include investigate the financial implications of
property tax reform at the State level and investment options for
farmers and businesses during high income periods. Other projects weigh
regulatory costs in rural lending, conduct statistical analysis of
Chapter 12 bankruptcy filing data, and identify determinants of the
type and terms of leases used in agriculture.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work has been underway since 1992. Appropriations
were $125,000 in FY 1992, $125,000 in FY 1993, $118,000 in FY 1994, and
$106,000 in FY 1995 through FY 1997. Appropriations through FY 1997
total $686,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal sources and funds provided for this
program in FY 1992 total $259,427 with $58,427 in State appropriations,
$189,000 from industry and $12,000 from miscellaneous sources. In FY
1993, the total was $287,890 with $94,588 in State appropriations,
$133,000 from industry and $25,000 from miscellaneous sources. In FY
1994, the total was $391,000 with $221,000 coming from State
appropriations, $45,000 from industry and $125,000 from miscellaneous
sources. In FY 1995 the total was $185,000 where $46,000 came from
State appropriations, $62,500 from industry and $76,500 from
miscellaneous sources. In FY 1996, the total was $344,000 where
$294,000 was appropriated from State sources and $50,000 from private
sources. In FY 1997, $177,000 is being appropriated from State sources.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The work is being carried out at the University of
Illinois and University of Arkansas.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original objectives of the program were amended with
additional funding and new termination dates which now extend to fiscal
year 1998. While many of the objectives have been met, the principal
researcher believes that new dimensions of the originally proposed
objectives need to be addressed as a result of changing conditions and
new financial environments. Anticipated completion date of these
related objectives will extend into fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the latest evaluation conducted.
Response. The project is evaluated with the submission of the
annual proposal and as progress reports are received. The program has
supported projects which cover topics involving farm and rural business
finance. During this past year, the projects have been responsive to
the changing policy and financial risk environment including the
examination of financial impacts of vertical coordination in the
livestock industry and impacts of structural change within the rural
finance sector. Evaluation of the program considers methodologies used
to conduct specific projects, the impact the projects have on current
issues, and products resulting from the projects.
floriculture, hawaii
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the floriculture program grant.
Response. The research carried out with these funds involves
wholesale and retail US and Japan market research, development of new
varieties for aesthetic values and pest resistance, and pest and
disease management strategies to meet quarantine needs and consumer
expectations.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The researcher believes the tropical cut flower and
foliage industry in Hawaii, which includes anthurium, orchids,
flowering gingers, bird of paradise, heliconia, protea, and cut
foliage--ti leaves and other greens--is worth over $50 million
primarily in out-of-state sales. Development of disease resistant
cultivars and quarantine pest and disease management strategies which
reduced pesticide usage are included in the national high priority
improved pest management systems.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the research was to develop superior
Hawaii anthuriums, orchids, protea, and exotic tropical flower
varieties with disease resistance, particularly to anthurium blight
which devastated the Hawaii anthurium industry through the mid-1980's
and reduced Hawaii's market share. Additionally, research focused on
development of post-harvest handling practices and quarantine pest
control. To date, a new anthurium cultivar has been patented and
released. Additional blight resistant cultivars are being propagated
and tested by the anthurium industry. Disease resistant protea
germplasm has been obtained from South Africa and is being used in the
protea breeding program. A post-harvest hot water dip treatment has
been developed and is being used commercially on tolerant cutflower
species to meet quarantine requirements.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $300,000; fiscal years 1990-1993, $296,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $278,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997
$250,000 each year. A total of $2,512,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: State appropriations of $87,937.00 in 1995 and $87,937
in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted by the University of Hawaii
at Manoa and Hilo.
Mr. Skeen. When was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The objectives in the original project were to maintain
Hawaii floricultural industry competitive. This objective continues to
be the principal direction for the projects. Because the industry and
the markets are changing, pests are becoming either resistant or newer
strains, and quarantines are changing with technology the objective
remains valid.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The individual projects funded under this Special
Research Grant are evaluated through merit review to ensure that good
science is being used. This evaluation is the major tool used to award
funds to the projects.
food and agriculture policy institute, iowa, and missouri
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done at the food and agriculture policy institute program.
Response. The Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute
(FAPRI) was established by Iowa State University and the University of
Missouri, Columbia, in 1984. The purpose of the institute is to conduct
comprehensive analyses and disseminate results about the economic
impacts of U.S. food, farm, and trade policies to agricultural
producers, agribusinessmen, and public policymakers. Iowa State
conducts research on the economic interrelationships within and between
domestic and foreign food and agricultural markets from the farm gate
to market destinations; develops and maintains databases and analytical
support systems to facilitate the analysis of agricultural and trade
policy issues; and evaluates the impacts of U.S. and foreign commodity
supply, demand, and public policy programs on agricultural trade. The
University of Missouri maintains models of the domestic agricultural
economy and directs its efforts primarily to the analysis of domestic
policy issues. The two universities maintain linkages with a number of
other universities who provide data and analytical support to the
system.
The universities maintain a comprehensive analytical modeling
system of the U.S. and international food and agricultural sectors to
evaluate near- and long-term economic implications of alternative farm
policies for the basic commodities. The system is capable of providing
economic information on potential impacts out to 10 years in the future
of farm policies on farm prices, income, output, government program
costs and means to enhance the management of farm programs at the
national level.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The Nation's agricultural sector and its components are
subject to numerous Federal policies and programs. FAPRI is the only
publicly supported, non-federal organization with the analytical
capability to assess and evaluate the numerous public policies and
programs affecting the agricultural sector and report results to a
broad constituency including farmers, agribusinessmen, and Federal and
State policymakers.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to develop the analytical
capability to assess and evaluate U.S. farm policies on the U.S.
agricultural sector and disseminate this information to farmers,
agribusinessmen, and public policymakers. The mission has been expanded
to include assessment of trade and environmental policy impacts and
their interaction with the agricultural sector at national, regional,
and farm levels. The models in place are also used to assess fiscal and
monetary policy implications and impacts of new technologies such as
biotechnological innovations on the agricultural sector.
Both institutions maintain large econometric models and data sets
which are regularly updated to analyze farm and trade policy
alternatives and the impacts of various programs on the several sub
sectors of the agricultural economy. During the past year, the FAPRI
completed over 45 studies addressing policy issues such as assessments
of the 1996 Farm Bill and alternative ways of implementing its
provisions. Numerous studies were completed addressing improvements
made to the empirical modeling system to improve domestic and
international policy capabilities. The FAPRI professionals made
numerous public appearances throughout the U.S. to agricultural groups
and Congressional committees and Executive branch groups addressing
policy issues.
New thrusts include development of two new baselines to complement
the existing agricultural baseline used for agricultural policy
analysis. These are the resource and environmental baseline and the
food-nutrition-health baseline. Completion and incorporation of these
baselines into the existing model framework will provide an integrated
procedure to assess environmental and health policies on the
agricultural and food sectors and implications of agricultural policies
on the environment and public health.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1984-1985, $450,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-
1987, $357,000 per year; fiscal year 1988, $425,000; fiscal year 1989,
$463,000; fiscal year 1990, $714,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $750,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $705,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $850,000
each year, and fiscal year 1997, $800,000. The total amount
appropriated is $8,671,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $260,355 State appropriations, $113,565 industry, and
$37,913 miscellaneous for a total of $411,833 in fiscal year 1991;
$321,074 State appropriations, $51,500 industry, and $35,100
miscellaneous for a total of $407,674 in fiscal year 1992; $234,796
State appropriations and $70,378 industry for a total of $305,174 in
fiscal year 1993; $78,286 State appropriations, $43,925 industry, and
$29,750 miscellaneous in fiscal year 1994 for a total of $151,961;
$80,155 State appropriations, $37,128 industry, and $42,236
miscellaneous for a total of $159,519 for fiscal year 1995; $124,123 in
State appropriations with no other funding for fiscal year 1996; and
$79,000 in State appropriations, $50,000 industry and $25,000
miscellaneous for a total of $154,000 in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The program is carried out at the Center for Agriculture
and Rural Development, Iowa State University and the Center for
National Food and Agricultural Policy, University of Missouri.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. This is a continuing program of research and analysis for
the purpose of assessing farm and related policy actions and proposed
actions likely to affect the agricultural sector and its components.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. We have conducted no formal evaluation of this program.
However, the project proposal is carefully reviewed for adherence to
stated objectives and annual progress.
food irradiation, iowa
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the food irradiation grant.
Response. Since the Linear Accelerator Facility was placed in
operation in March 1993, studies on the effect of irradiation on shelf-
life extension, safety and quality of ground beef, beef steaks, ham,
pork chops from loins, chicken breasts, and turkey have been conducted.
Studies combining irradiation with high hydrostatic pressure and
cooking, using whole chicken breasts, turkey and ham, have been
conducted to determine the combination of these treatments that will
yield a shelf-stable product while maintaining high eating quality.
Several studies were conducted to determine whether consumers can
detect a difference between irradiated and non-irradiated ground beef
patties. Experiments were also conducted to investigate consumer
acceptance of pork products irradiated to prevent trichinosis. Test
markets of irradiated chicken breasts were conducted to determine
consumers' willingness to pay for irradiated products.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes consumers' attention
and concern about the safety of fresh meat and poultry has increased
with recent outbreaks of foodborne illness from E. coli 0157:H7. The
meat industry has also expressed interest regarding the quality of
irradiated products, and how this process can be used to yield high
quality fresh meats that are free of pathogens. With the recent
outbreak of illness of thousands of Japanese due to E. coli 0157:H7 and
the subsequent drastic reduction of U.S. beef exports to Japan,
irradiation of beef could have significant economic impact on the
nation's export of this high value product. Additionally, researchers
from eight other research institutes have used the irradiation facility
for research projects.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the research was to generate
knowledge necessary to develop a research and technology transfer
program leading to commercial use of irradiation of foods, whereby
consumers would be provided with food products with enhanced safety.
The effectiveness of irradiation, using an electron beam accelerator,
in destroying known pathogenic bacteria in pork and beef has been
determined. Mathematical models have been developed to predict the
growth of bacteria in low-dose irradiated ground pork. Demonstration of
irradiation technology has been presented to some commercial firms, and
plans are being developed for some large scale test markets.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991 when $100,000 was appropriated for this project. The
appropriations for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 were $237,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $223,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $201,000 each
year. A total of $1,400,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The project received $1,037,270 in State of Iowa funds--
$1 million of which was for capital construction--in fiscal year 1991;
$37,942 in state funds and $67,800 in industry grants in fiscal year
1992; $68,897 in state funds, $78,300 in industry grants and $9,666 in
user fees in fiscal year 1993, $70,652 in state funds, $35,420 in
industry grants and $47,788 in user fees in fiscal year 1994; and
$72,772 in state funds, $100,000 in industry grants and $55,211 in user
fees in fiscal year 1995; and $81,540 in state funds, $115,300 in
industry grants.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. The principal investigator anticipates that the project
will continue through June 1998. Since irradiation continues to be
viewed skeptically by many non-scientists as a tool for improving
shelf-life and preserving food, and because optimal dose and use
parameters are still being defined, additional research will be needed
to move this technology to broader consumer acceptance and industry use
to enhance safety of food projects. Until irradiation of red meat is
approved by the Food and Drug Administration, research on the factors
affecting the quality of irradiated red meat will be primarily
conducted using the Iowa State University facility.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of
the proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual
basis. A review of the proposal was conducted on December 20, 1996.
Previous studies funded under this project have provided useful
information toward understanding how irradiation can be useful in
eliminating or reducing foodborne pathogens in meat products. It is
anticipated that the proposed research will continue to further the
understanding of how irradiation can be used to improve shelf-life and
enhance safety of meats and meat products.
food marketing policy center, connecticut
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Food Marketing Policy Center program?
Response. The Food Marketing Policy Center was established in 1988
at the University of Connecticut at Storrs. The Center conducts
interdisciplinary research on food and agricultural marketing and
related public policy issues that influence economic performance of the
food marketing system. The Center studies how public policies and
private sector organization and strategies affect food industry
competitiveness and the delivery of food and services, their costs,
prices, and safety. The Center works closely with the University of
Massachusetts to carry out the research program.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The research proposal identifies an ongoing national need
to continually improve the economic efficiency and operation of the
U.S. food marketing system to benefit farmers, merchants, and
consumers.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The ongoing research goal is to identify marketing
problems and assess alternatives that improve economic performance of
the U.S. agricultural and food marketing sector. The Center conducts
research in conjunction with the Hatch regional research project NE-
165, ``Private Strategies, Public Policies and Food System
Performance.'' The Center performs studies on food marketing, including
a description of food quality issues and enhancement policies; private
label food brands; advertising strategies of agricultural cooperatives;
assessment of food retailing mergers and competition; and evaluation of
state dairy regulations, branded product marketing strategies,
supermarket chain entry, obligopsony in agricultural markets, and the
impact of agricultural cooperatives on food processor market
performance. The Center develops analytical methods to assess market
performance. It has sponsored workshops on industrial organization
issues. Food safety economic issues are addressed in two books and at
workshops that summarize research done at the center and the regional
research project.
This grant will be used to support research on 12 projects with
research targeted at three problem areas. They are factors shaping
decisions by food firms and the consequent effects; impact assessment
of public intervention on firm food safety and quality strategies; and
analysis of public policies affecting competition in food markets.
Projects include analyses of the effects of trade agreements on food
quality and trade in food products; an assessment of the efficiency
aspects of ex ante versus ex post approaches to food safety problems;
firm strategic responses to food safety and nutrition regulation and
effects on competition, market structure and food price levels;
demographic patterns of food borne illness for high risk populations;
market structure on food advertising activity; competitive strategies
of cooperatives; basic research on oligopoly theory; and publication of
new data sets on the food industry.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1988, $150,000; fiscal year 1989, $285,000; fiscal
year 1990, $373,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $393,000 per year; fiscal
year 1994, $369,000; and fiscal year 1995 through 1997, $332,000 each
year. A total of $3,352.00 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are State appropriations as follows: $234,259 in fiscal year 1991;
$231,741 in fiscal year 1992; $201,288 in fiscal year 1993; $234,557 in
fiscal year 1994; $219,380 in fiscal year 1995; and $134,399 in fiscal
year 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The research is being carried out by the Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station at Storrs and at the University of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the projects? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1987 was for 24 months. The
objective of conducting policy-oriented research on food manufacturing
and distribution industries to assist state and Federal policy decision
makers in improving the performance of the food system is still an
ongoing public concern, given increasing levels of concentration in
food processing according to the principal researcher. The current
phase, as funded in fiscal year 1997, will be completed in 2001.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. CSREES annually reviews project reports, succeeding
annual project proposals, research studies and educational programs.
food processing center, nebraska
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the food processing center grant.
Response. The University of Nebraska Food Processing Center has
been conducting short-term, highly applied research projects to assist
small and mid-sized food processing companies and entrepreneurs to
develop or improve processes and products and to develop new food
processing enterprises. Projects were selected based on the estimated
economic impact of the technical assistance or the criticality of the
technical assistance to the future of the firm or venture. Priorities
were placed on projects relating to the safety of the food product or
process and to the fulfillment of regulatory mandates such as nutrition
labeling, use of approved and effective ingredients, and adherence to
regulations imposed by foreign governments. In addition, several
research projects were conducted to improve or assess the quality,
extend the shelf-life, or assess or improve the processing efficiency
of specialty food products which impacted several processors or used
alternative agricultural products.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the primary impact of
this project will be statewide. Small and mid-sized food processing
companies and entrepreneurs have limited technological capabilities for
addressing issues related to product development, process development,
product and process evaluation, food safety, quality assurance, and
regulatory mandates. The short-term research and technology transfer
projects conducted as part of this overall project will aid these
companies in appropriately addressing these oftentimes complicated
issues.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of the research, as stated previously, is to
assist small and mid-sized food processing companies and entrepreneurs
to develop or improve processes and products and to develop new food
processing enterprises. Technological evaluations were conducted for
210 individuals or companies interested in developing new food
processing businesses. These evaluations included formulations,
processes, processing equipment, packaging, shelf-life, sensory,
nutritional attributes, microbiological quality, regulatory
considerations, and other factors, Additionally, microbiological
analyses, shelf-life assessments, sanitation audits, and nutritional
analyses were conducted for numerous Nebraska food companies.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1992. The appropriations were $50,000 per year for fiscal years 1992-
1993; $47,000 for fiscal year 1994; and $42,000 for fiscal years 1995-
1997 each year. A total of $273,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The Food Processing Center received $288,421 in State
funds and $1,303,685 in food industry grants and miscellaneous sources
from 1992 through 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of
Nebraska.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. Because this project supports ongoing technical
assistance to clients, the objectives are ongoing.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of
the proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual
basis. A review of the proposal was conducted on December 20, 1996.
Progress under previous grants for this project appears to be
satisfactory.
food systems research group, wisconsin
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Food Systems Research Group program.
Response. The Group conducts research on contemporary issues
affecting the organization and competitiveness of the U.S. food system
in domestic and international markets. The issues include new
technologies, market structure, and government policies and programs.
Studies have been completed on pricing of cheddar cheese, fed cattle
and hogs; changes in private label product markets: causes of
structural change in the flour milling, soybean oil milling, wet corn
milling, cottonseed milling, beef packing, and broiler processing
industries; competition in U.S. food markets; and the relationship
between U.S. food market structure and the industry's performance in
global markets.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
research, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal research believes that the U.S. food system
is changing rapidly in response to a large number of global economic-
social-technical changes. Research is needed to determine the effects
of these change on the system's organization and performance, and to
ascertain needed adjustments in policies based upon sound research.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research, and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to conduct research to assess and
evaluate the organization and performance of the U.S. food industry and
provide recommendations for improvements. The Food System Research
Group recently completed a study of the National Cheese Exchange which
resulted in a major public report, Congressional hearings, and a
Wisconsin task force. Alternative pricing mechanisms are being
developed to avoid the problems of a very thin market which is used to
price a large volume of off-market sales. The group is also examining
the impact of ``tough competition'' policies on industry performance.
Deregulation in the United States and privatization in the U.K.,
Mexico, and Eastern Europe provide empirical bases for evaluating the
impact.
The Group has completed numerous studies on economic structure and
performance issues of the U.S. food manufacturing and distribution
system. Basic research is conducted on market theories; effects of
mergers, new technologies, and firm conduct on industry structure and
organization; factors affecting industry prices, profits, efficiency
and progressiveness; and impact of public policies and regulations on
food system organization and performance.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1976-1981, $150,000 per year; fiscal years 1982-
1985, $156,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1989, $148,000 per year;
fiscal year 1990, $219,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $261,000 per year,
fiscal year 1994, $245,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $221,000 per
year. A total of $4,026,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: State appropriations of $120,304 in fiscal year 1991;
$119,448 in fiscal year 1992; $85,188 in fiscal year 1993; $96,838 in
fiscal year 1994; $100,869 in fiscal year 1995; $101,272 in fiscal year
1966; and $112,842 in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The grant supports research at the University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1976 was for a period of 36
months. The current phase of the program will be completed in 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in January
1997 as it evaluated the project proposal for 1997 and concluded that,
under this project, researchers conduct unique studies on the
structure, conduct and performance of selected segments of the food
industry. In spite of the growing concentration in food production-
processing and increasing public policy questions concerning the
performance of this industry, few organizations are providing the
research needed for public and private decision-making. Research
results appear in several professional journals and popular press and
researchers have ongoing dialog with private and public decision-
makers.
forestry research, arkansas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Forestry research grant.
Response. The Arkansas Forest Resources Center has offered programs
of teaching and research to the landowners of Arkansas and the
surrounding region. This has been done through offering continuing
education workshops for landowners. The educational thrust has combined
Center and private dollars to establish computer software capability
capable of use in the education of landowners and students. The Center
includes one of only three Arc View learning centers for natural
resources. The Center has acquired quality staff, well versed in the
use of advanced technologies.
Projects address issues of species diversity, richness, redundance,
and the resilience of disturbed and undisturbed hardwood stands.
Furthermore, evidence exists that neotropical migratory birds are
indicators of ecosystem health. Factors implicated as influencing their
breeding range include habitat destruction/alteration, forest
fragmentation, etc. Thus, issues of re-establishment and the structure
of regenerated hardwood stands are important for timber, non-timber
values, and the quality of life enjoyed regionally, nationally, and
internationally. These issues will grow in importance as Southern
forests assume greater proportions of the national demand for hardwood
fiber and wood.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that with the reduced
levels of production of wood products from the Northwest, Southern
forests are increasingly bearing the brunt of providing the majority of
wood products for the United States. This increased production makes
more imperative the appropriate and efficient balance in the use of
Southern forests in producing timber and non-timber outputs. This would
prevent these conflicts, or at least reduce them significantly.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. Developing alternative forest management strategies for
achieving multi-resource objectives; i.e., joint production of timber,
wildlife, recreation, and other outputs of the forest on private,
industrial, and non-industrial forest lands and public forest lands, is
the thrust of goal one of the project. In the last year, significant
progress has been made in several areas. Some examples include:
developing intensive fiber farming systems as alternatives to soybeans
for Mississippi farmers, taking the first step toward biological
control of the Southern pine beetle by discovering the nutrient needs
of predators of the beetle so they can be grown and studied in
artificial cultures, and conducting the first survey of nonindustrial
landowners in Arkansas for 15 years. The survey shows some areas for
concerns, such as the fact that the average age of forest landowners is
over 60. There will be a massive change in ownership in the next 10-20
years. Landowners continue to not be aware of assistance programs and a
concern about government programs and intervention on private land.
This is information needed to prepare our institutions for transitions
and to design more effective programs.
Ongoing projects include a broad array of topics, competitively
awarded within the Center, concerned with best management practices,
ecological characteristics, effects of different management
intensities, streamside buffer zone effectiveness, as well as the
efforts mentioned previously.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1994. The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $470,000 and for
fiscal year 1995 through 1997, $523,000 each year. A total of
$2,039,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. During fiscal year 1994, more than $380,000 was funded by
forest and related industries and private foundations. For fiscal years
1995 and 1996, these figures were $815,000 and $910,000, respectively.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted at the School of Forest
Resources, the University of Arkansas at Monticello.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The primary project objectives are to be completed by the
end of the fifth year of funding, and the specific objectives of each
project will be met. Some projects have long-term objectives, typical
of forestry research. These projects and objectives will be continued
using the infrastructure and capacity developed with these Special
Research Grants.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. In 1991, a Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service team visited Monticello and reviewed faculty
qualifications, supporting sources, and the feasibility of the
proposal. The team exit report indicated the faculty was highly
capable, the infrastructure needed strengthening, and the proposal
concepts were feasible. Since 1991, there has not been a formal program
review.
fruit and vegetable market analysis, arizona and missouri
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the fruit and vegetable market analysis program.
Response. The purpose is to provide timely knowledge of the impacts
of trade, environmental, monetary, and other public policies and
programs upon the Nation's fruit and vegetable industry to farmers,
agribusinessmen, and policymakers through a program of empirical
assessment and evaluation.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The U.S. fruit and vegetable sector is experiencing
increased growth from greater domestic and export demand. However, the
growth of this sector depends upon its ability to compete domestically
and internationally and to conform with the regulatory environment in
which it operates. This program of research provides information to
farmers and policymakers on the implications and impacts of various
policies and programs.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal is to develop the analytical capability to
assess and evaluate public policies and programs impacting the U.S.
fruit and vegetable industry and disseminate the results to users.
Proposals have been submitted that outline long-range plans and
specific projects for funding. Models have been developed for potatoes,
fresh market tomatoes, onions, broccoli, lettuce, cauliflower, oranges
and apples. This grant will be used to develop models for processing
market tomatoes, strawberries, celery, cucumbers and green peppers.
Trade models for those commodities with a significant import and/or
export sector will also be developed. These models feed in to a larger
food and agricultural sector model to support analyses of cross
commodity and policy effects.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1994. The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $329,000, and for
fiscal years 1995-1997, $296,000 each year. A total of $1,217,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funding provided to this grant in fiscal
year 1994 was $50,073 State appropriations and $11,000 industry for a
total of $61,073; $21,876 State appropriations and $36,624 industry for
a total of $58,500 for fiscal year 1995; a total of $62,400 from State
and industry sources expected for fiscal year 1996; and approximately
$50,000 from these sources in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The work is being carried out at Arizona State University
and the University of Missouri.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The university researchers anticipate that work is an
ongoing project to look at the impact of various public policy
proposals on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. We have conducted no formal evaluation. However each
annual proposal is carefully reviewed and work progress is compared
with prior year's objectives.
generic commodity promotion, new york
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the generic commodity promotion program.
Response. The grant supports, in part, the National Institute on
Commodity Promotion Research and Evaluation which provides objectives
analyses of national and state commodity checkoff programs designed to
enhance domestic and export demand.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principle researcher believes that producers are
contributing about $1 billion annually to commodity research and
promotion funds designed to expand the domestic and export markets for
their products. The number of commodity groups participating and the
size of the funds available could continue to grow. There are national
and regional needs to ascertain the effectiveness of such programs
because of the large number of dollars involved and several questions
about their effectiveness.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal is to determine the economic effectiveness of
generic promotion programs designed to increase the sales of
agricultural commodities in domestic and international markets. Recent
accomplishments include: the impact of promotion and other factors on
the sales of almonds, beef exports, pork exports, and wheat exports;
development of a major database of commodity advertising expenditures
for future research; new methods of measuring advertising wearout; and
comparisons of research techniques to determine sensitivity of results
based on various methods used.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by the grant began in fiscal year
1994. The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $235,000 and for
fiscal years 1995-1997, $212,000 each year. A total of $871,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal matching funds and sources allocated to
this grant by Cornell University are as follows: $97,333 a year in
State appropriations for fiscal years 1994-96; $97,333 for fiscal year
1997. Collaborating institutions performing work under subcontract
agreements have not provided information.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work is being carried out at Cornell University in
collaboration with eight other land-grant universities.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 21
months, however, the objectives for evaluating the benefits of
promotion programs is a growing regional and national concern as
producers take on greater responsibility for marketing their products.
The current phase of the program will be completed in 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in January
1997, as it evaluated the project proposal for 1997, and determined
that the project provides leadership for a unique body of research and
education on the impact of commodity promotion programs. Research
results appear in several professional journals and popular press and
researchers have ongoing dialog with private and public decision
makers.
global change
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the global change grant.
Response. Radiation from the sun occurs in a spectrum of
wavelengths with a majority of wavelengths being beneficial to humans
and other living organisms. A small portion of the short wavelength
radiation, what is known as the Ultraviolet or UV-B Region of the
spectrum, is harmful to many biological organisms. Fortunately, most of
the UV-B radiation from the sun is absorbed by ozone located in the
stratosphere and does not reach the surface of the earth. The discovery
of a deterioration of the stratospheric ozone layer and the occurrence
of an ozone hole over polar regions has raised concern about the real
potential for increased UV-B irradiance reaching the surface of the
earth and the significant negative impact this could have on all
biological systems including man plus animals and plants of
agricultural importance. There is an urgent need to determine the
amount of UV-B radiation reaching the earth's surface and to learn more
about the effect of this changing environmental force. The Cooperative
State Research, Education and Extension Service, CSREES, is in the
process of establishing a network for monitoring surface UV-B radiation
which will meet the needs of the science community of the United
States, and which will be compatible with similar networks being
developed throughout the world. The fiscal year 1996 grant supports
work through July 1997.
This grant is part of a government-wide initiative. The research is
closely coordinated with other Federal agencies involved in the U.S.
Global Change Research Program UV-Monitoring Network Plan.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes destruction of the
stratospheric ozone layer, our shield from the full intensity of solar
radiation, continues to increase. This creates a high priority need for
information to document not only the levels of UV-B radiation reaching
the earth's surface, but the climatology of that radiation. The United
States, and the rest of the world, needs to know the strength of the
UV-B radiation reaching the earth and the potential impact on all forms
of life, especially animal and plant life of agriculturally important
species. The principal researcher believes this research to be of
national as well as regional and local importance.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The USDA UV-B Network is to provide accurate,
geographically dispersed data on UV-B radiation reaching the surface of
the earth and to detect trends over time in this type of radiation. A
primary problem which had to be overcome in order to reach this goal is
the development of instrumentation adequate to make the measurements
required for the monitoring network. A major advance occurred during
1996 with the availability to the network of a new multi-band
instrument which will provide the spectral information needed to
support both biological and atmospheric science research and to serve
as ground-truth for satellite measurements. These instruments have been
deployed and are currently in operation at ten monitoring sites across
the United States. The researchers plan to have twenty sites
operational by the summer of 1997.
Two grants to design and build advanced spectroradiometers have
been awarded under the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants
Program. These instruments are to be used in a research network to make
precise measurements of the total UV-B spectra at selected sites. The
first of these instruments failed to meet spectral performance
standards when tested and calibrated by the National Institute of
Science and Technology. An alternative design which will result in much
larger and difficult instrument to deploy is currently under
development.
To gain network experience, broadband instruments along with
ancillary instruments have been installed at ten selected field sites
and operated for the last 28-36 months. An additional ten sites have
been developed during the last 12 months, including those equipped with
the new multi-band UV instrument. Data from all sites is transmitted
daily to Colorado State University for analysis, distribution and
archiving. These data are available, within 24 hours of collection, on
the Internet via a World Wide Web located in the Natural Resources
Research Laboratory at Colorado State University. The Department of
Agriculture is also a participant in the development of a central
calibration facility located at Department of Commerce facilities in
Boulder, Colorado to ensure uniform and acceptable calibration and
characterization of all instruments used in interagency UV-B monitoring
programs.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1992, and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $2,000,000
per year; fiscal year 1994 was $1,175,000; fiscal year 1995 was
$1,625,000; fiscal year 1996 was $1,615,000; and fiscal year 1997 is
$1,657,000. A total of $10,072,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $162,000 state appropriations in 1993; $183,106 state
appropriations in 1994; and $285,430 provided by Colorado State
University in 1995.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Colorado State University is managing the operating
network which, when completed, will include all regions of the country.
At least thirty sites are planned for the climatological network
including sites in Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico in order to provide
broad geographic coverage. Ten sites have been operational with broad
band instruments for up to three years and it is planned to have at
least twenty sites operational with new generation instruments by the
summer of 1997. The research level network will begin with the first
instrument to be installed at the Department of Energy Solar Radiation
site near Ponca City, Oklahoma, as part of the Atmospheric Radiation
Measurements field network.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. As with other weather and climate observations, this
network will address an ongoing need for the predictable future. These
measurements will provide information on the nature and seriousness of
UV-B radiation in the United States and will provide ground truth
validation to other predictions of UV-B irradiance.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency has assigned two technical staff to
continuously monitor activities in the global change research program.
A team of three experts in UV-B radiation measurement technology
reviewed specifications for the development of the advanced
spectroradiometers in July 1996 prior to the procurement of major
components of the instrument. A panel of radiation spectra scientists
was brought in to review data derived from the new multiband instrument
in December 1996 to advise on the interpretation and analysis of data
derived from these instruments. Agency staff is in contact with program
management on a weekly basis and has visited the program headquarters
four times during the last year.
global marketing support services, arkansas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the global marketing support services program.
Response. This grant supports the University of Arkansas Global
Marketing Support Services program to provide research and service to
agribusinesses. The objective of the university research is to identify
potential foreign markets for Arkansas products and to conduct and
disseminate foreign market assessment and evaluation studies to
agribusiness firms.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the emerging importance
of global trade to the nation's economy and the reduction of trade
barriers world-wide presents unprecedented opportunities for
cooperative public-private-university research to develop expertise in
world markets
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal is to develop a university research and service
organization to support international trade development activities by
local area businesses. Research is conducted to determine the demand
for specific Arkansas products in selected countries.
Recent results include: twelve ``Industry/Company Opportunity
Reports'' that provided local businesses with information about
potential export markets; a report on consumer attitudes in Mexico and
Columbia toward imported products; an evaluation of the food system in
China, with emphasis on poultry sector; two new fact sheets; and
additions to an electronic export information database that is accessed
by local firms.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1994. The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $47,000; and for 1995
through 1997, $92,000 a year. A total of $323,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are $90,000 per year in State appropriations for fiscal years 1994-
1996. Private funds also support this grant but an estimate is not
available.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted at the University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1994 requested funding for a
period of 12 months, but the objectives for expanding the export
capacity of small to medium-sized agribusiness firms will not be fully
met until 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in January
1997 as it evaluated the project proposal for 1997. CSREES scientists
are currently working with the university researchers to enhance the
1997 proposal so that it adequately reflects the kind of work being
conducted and to address timelines for the initiation of new research
and the distribution of results.
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Grain Sorghum grant.
Response. This project was designed to address the lack of yield
improvement in grain sorghum cultivars, particularly when grown under
dryland conditions where a considerable portion of this crop is grown.
The research will focus on identification of early maturing lines which
will shift more of the production to grain and less to vegetative
growth and thereby making more efficient use of the limited water
supply.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The focus of this research is toward the non-irrigated
lands of Kansas where sorghum can produce a grain crop under conditions
that would not be possible with corn and is therefore very important in
the rotation with wheat. While the research is directed toward Kansas
conditions, it would also apply to adjoining states.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research is to identify/develop
grain sorghum cultivars that mature earlier with more of the production
in grain rather than vegetative growth. This is a new project starting
in fiscal year 1997, so no significant accomplishments can be reported
at this time.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1997 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is $106,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. This is a new project, therefore no funds have expended
on the proposed research.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at Kansas State University.
Mr. Skeen. When was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. This is a new project starting in fiscal year 1997, so
the objectives have not yet been met.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The research proposal will be peer reviewed prior to
awarding of funds.
grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable
Agriculture grant.
Response. This program was developed to provide management systems
for sustainable grass seed production without field burning of the
straw residue following harvest which results in adverse air quality
problems. Grass seed yields are often significantly reduced the
following season if the residue is not burned. Fiscal year 1996 grant
proposal has been received and is being processed.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that according to
information provided by technical committees representing researchers
and the grass seed industry, the need for this research is to develop
sustainable systems of seed production that do not depend on field
burning of straw residue. Much of the grass seed for the United States
including lawn grasses is produced in the area. Field burning of straw
residue creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and yields of some
cultivar decline without burning.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal for this project is to develop grass
seed production systems that do not depend on field burning of straw
residue. To date joint planning by state experiment station
administrators and researchers from the three states with industry
input for an integrated regional research effort to solve the problem.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1994. The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $470,000, and for
fiscal years 1995-1997, $423,000 each year. A total of $1,739,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The nonfederal support for this project in fiscal year
1994 was $266,055, $298,052 for fiscal year 1995 and $282,053 in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research will be conducted by the three state
agricultural experiment stations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. Completion of the initial objectives was anticipated to
take 5 years and therefore should be completed in 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The entire project is reviewed annually by a steering
committee for focus and relevance. The combined proposal is reviewed by
CSREES before funds are awarded.
human nutrition, iowa
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Human Nutrition, Iowa grant.
Response. This research aims to develop animal and plant foods with
nutritionally optimal fat content and to improve utilization of foods
containing non-nutrient health protectants, components that may reduce
health risks. The research includes human and animal nutrient
utilization, consumer food choices, and economic impacts of nutritional
optimization of food production and processing. The fiscal year 1996
grant supports research efforts of 25 investigators from six
disciplines through June 1997.
Mr. Skeen. According to the principal researcher, what is the
national, regional or local need for this research?
Response. The research addresses food quality, nutrition and
optimal health. Much of the research focuses on improving the
nutritional quality of foods important to the economy of the Midwest,
while making those improvements economically feasible. This work may be
a model for the nation with regards to designing foods to improve human
nutrition.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of the center for Designing Foods to Improve
Nutrition, the administrative unit for this grant, is to improve human
nutrition and health maintenance by determining how to improve animal
and plant food fat content and how to increase availability of health-
protectant factors in the human food supply. The research includes food
production, processing, consumer choices, biological utilization, and
economic impacts.
This research has identified soy oils which can be naturally
hardened and early results indicate potential feasibility of processing
these oils into shortenings, which may provide human health benefits in
comparison with chemically saturated vegetable fats containing trans
fatty acids. Additional work further verifying the feasibility of
production of more highly unsaturated pork fat has also been conducted,
with human feeding trials underway. A novel health-protective,
cholesterol-lowering component of soy, the isoflavone daidzein, has
been identified in a mouse feeding study. Further evidence has been
found that oxygenated carotenoids potentially found in processed fruits
and vegetables have greater antioxidant ability than the parent
carotenoids. This greater antioxidant ability might be expected to
decrease cancer and heart disease risk.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991 with an appropriation of $300,000. The fiscal years 1992-1993
appropriation was $500,000 per year; $470,000 in fiscal year 1994;
$473,000 in fiscal years 1995 through 1997. A total of $3,189,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $293,000 university, $312,869 industry, and $14,000
miscellaneous in 1991; $90,000 state appropriations, $473,608
university, $131,160 industry, and $116,560 miscellaneous in 1992;
$307,500 state appropriations, $472,081 university, and $222,267
industry in 1993; $486,000 university, and $254,000 private in 1994;
$210,000 university, and $200,000 private in 1995; and $613,770
university and $207,811 private in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the Center for Designing
Foods to Improve Nutrition, Iowa State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original overall objective to design foods to improve
nutrition is continuing to be addressed. A set of related objectives
will be completed in 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The grant proposal for fiscal year 1996 was subjected to
extensive peer review and the recommendations will be incorporated into
the proposed renewal.
human nutrition, louisiana
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Human Nutrition, Louisiana grant.
Response. Obesity is a major problem in the United States. This
grant, entitled Dietary Fat and obesity, will help answer three issues
about this problem. Is there a specific preference for fat in some
people, and if so, how is it controlled? Why do thin people adapt
differently to a high fat diet than obese people? How do specific fatty
acids in the diet influence body metabolism of lean and obese people
differently?
Mr. Skeen. According to the principal researcher, what is the
national, regional or local need for this research?
Response. Obesity is one of the most important and preventable
problems in America today and its prevalence in Louisiana is among the
highest in the nation. The results will expand the foundation for
setting national dietary guidelines for individual fat intake.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The overall goal of this grant is to identify the basis
for the susceptibility to obesity of some people who eat high fat diets
and to understand how they differ from those people who are resistant
to becoming obese when eating a high fat diet. The first project is
aimed at identifying people who eat large amounts of fat and those who
eat small amounts of fat. The researchers are taking several approaches
to this problem, including specific laboratory tests and evaluations of
people in free choice environments. In the second project, they have
examined the effect of different levels and distributions of body fat
on the way foods with different amounts of fat are used by the body.
This will be followed by detailed studies on the processes by which
adjustments to changes in body fat are made. The third project will
evaluate the effect of different types of dietary fat on the metabolism
and response to insulin. These studies have just begun.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1991-1993 was $800,000 per
year; for fiscal years 1994-1997 was $752,000 per year. A total of
$5,408,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds an sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $523,100 state appropriations in 1991; $515,100 state
appropriations and $2,216,606 private in 1992; $536,100 state
appropriations and $940,000 private in 1993; $627,000 state
appropriations and $3,775,000 private in 1994; $546,100 state
appropriations and $3,100,000 private in 1995; and $1,471,000 state
appropriations and $2,488,000 private in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at the Pennington Biomedical
Research Center, Louisiana State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the original
objectives is fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The grant proposal for fiscal year 1996 was subjected to
extensive peer review, and in December 1996 an on-site panel of
researchers evaluated the proposed objectives and experimental
protocols. On the basis of the written comments from the reviewers, the
proposal for fiscal year 1997 was revised.
human nutrition, new york
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Human Nutrition, New York grant.
Response. The work focuses on the basic biological roles of
selected nutrients and other food components which are expected to
increase or fall as consumption patterns move toward dietary
guidelines. The objectives are to develop strategies for improving
methods to monitor plant-based food consumption; approaches to increase
their consumption by school-aged children; and an integrated analysis
of availability, accessibility, and consumption of plant-based foods at
the community level.
Mr. Skeen. According to the principal researcher, what is the
national, regional or local need for this research?
Response. The research will contribute to the knowledge base needed
by consumers to make informed decisions, businesses to plan for
maintaining the world's most efficient food system, and those who make
and implement policies related to agriculture, food and health outcomes
as eating patterns shift to predominantly plant-food based diets.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The newly revised dietary guidelines reemphasize expected
health benefits from the increased consumption of fruits, vegetables,
and grain products. As pointed out in the response to the first
question, investigations are carried out at the basic, clinical, and
community levels. Brief synopses typifying the accomplishments are
reported. Changes in the American diet are expected to alter lipid
metabolism by impacting fat levels and composition. Lipoprotein lipase
is a pivotal enzyme that regulates lipid metabolism. New understandings
about the enzyme were reported. Researchers cloned a larger portion of
the human lipoprotein lipase promoter than had been isolated
previously. The activity, synthesis and secretion of lipoprotein lipase
is decrease ten fold in young fat cells transfected with the hormone
leptin, which suggests a new function for this hormone. In addition,
investigators demonstrated that fatty acids enhance the differentiation
of young fat cells and possible mechanisms are being explored. Work
also has been done on strategies for improving the quality of school
lunch programs. This work builds on an earlier study which showed the
reluctance of children to consume unfamiliar foods to be a significant
barrier. A coordinated effort by food service personnel, teachers, and
cooperative extension has resulted in a successful program that
introduces unfamiliar to school children by a variety of methods, such
as the introduction of various ethnic foods as part of lessons on
cultural diversity. Another portion of the work focuses on the
interrelationships among the factors that influence food choice at the
community, family and individual levels. The approach involves a unique
integration of research and intervention. Results indicate that use of
fruits and vegetables is positively associated with the previous
consumption of fresh produce from a home garden; regional, cultural, or
family traditions that emphasize these food groups, and health
concerns. Limited access to low cost and preferred types of fruits and
vegetables, and lack of time and skill for food preparation are
significant barriers to consumption. A ``Life Course Model of Fruit and
Vegetable Choices'' has been developed to guide further research and
intervention efforts.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have awarded from funds appropriated as follows:
fiscal year 1989, $450,000; fiscal years 1990-1991, $556,000 per year;
fiscal years 1992-1993, $735,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $691,000;
fiscal years 1995-1997, $622,000 each year. A total of $5,589,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources and provided for this
grant were as follows: $154,056 state appropriations and $2,456 private
in 1991; $238,430 state appropriations and $60,746 private in 1992;
$19,401 state appropriations and $22,083 private in 1993; $202,441
state appropriations and $1,175 private in 1994; $296,794 state
appropriations in 1995; and $348,127 in state appropriations and
$39,593 private in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at Cornell University, New
York.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original overall objective to integrate nutrition
goals and food systems is continuing to be addressed. A set of related
objectives will be completed in 1997 and a set of new related
objectives are planned for an additional three years.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The grant proposal for fiscal year 1995 was subjected to
extensive peer review, and the recommendations were incorporated into
the ensuing experimental designs.
illinois-missouri alliance for biotechnology
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Illinois Missouri Alliance grant.
Response. The Illinois-Missouri Alliance has initiated a
competitive grants program in agricultural biotechnology for research
in targeted priority areas of need related to corn and soybeans. The
scope of interest includes production, processing, marketing,
utilization, inputs and support services, along with economic, social,
environmental, and natural resource concerns. The Alliance has
solicited research project proposals from scientists at Illinois and
Missouri and other midwestern institutions, and have conducted peer
reviews for science quality, commerical feasibility and potential
economic impact to select the proposals that will be funded. In 1996
the Alliance awarded four research grants at three institutions
totaling $1,012,859. The Alliance also issued a second request for
proposals and received fifteen proposals which are being reviewed by an
external review panel of scientists employed by agribusinesses.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal investigator has indicated that the goal of
the Alliance is the pre-commercial development of emerging
biotechnology discoveries for agriculture. The midwestern region
produces more than half of the nation's output of corn soybean crops,
and the principal investigator believes it is critical to domestic food
security and United States competitiveness in global agricultural
markets. The Alliance is implementing a research strategy that it hopes
will generate important biotechnological developments that are rapidly
adaptable to unique local soil, climatic and socioeconomic conditions
of the region.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. Fiscal year 1996 was the second year of funding for the
Alliance. The research program focuses on the two major commodity
crops, corn and soybeans, as produced, processed and marketed in the
midwest. The goal is this biotechnology program is to fund integrated
research and development projects that will lead to specifically
defined practical technologies for commercialization. The projects
funded in fiscal year 1996 include efforts to: 1. produce soybeans free
of phytic acid to improve nutritional value and reduce phosphate
pollution, 2. improve the protein quality of corn by increasing its
lysine and tryptophan content, 3. increase oil content and change the
fatty acid composition of soybeans to add value, and 4. commercialize a
fast-acting recombinant baculovirus for control of European corn borer.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1995 and the appropriations for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 were
$1,357,000 each year, and for fiscal year 1997, $1,316,000. Thus a
total of $4,030,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The Alliance has not specified a required amount of
matching funds, but it is expected that most projects will have
commitments for significant direct and in-kind non-federal support.
Since Alliance projects are only now getting underway, the exact amount
of the non-federal contribution is still unknown. The non-federal
contribution is expected to be substantial, and a system for accounting
for future non-federal contributions is in place.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research projects identified for funding in fiscal
year 1995 is being conducted at the University of Illinois, the
University of Missouri, and Iowa State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. Each project proposal for Alliance funding has a target
date for completion. The four initial projects were three-year studies
with anticipated completions at the end of fiscal year 1998. Most of
the second round of projects are also three-year studies with
anticipated completions at the end of fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The Illinois-Missouri Biotechnology Alliance was
evaluated for scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on
January 7, 1997. The panel recommended approval of the project pending
receipt of supplemental information of administrative aspects of the
project.
improved dairy management practices, pennsylvania
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Improved Dairy Management Practices grant.
Response. The research focuses on developing methods to help diary
farmers in the adoption of new technology and management practices
which lead to improved dairy farm profitability.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the local need is the
identification and implementation of profit enhancing management
strategies for Pennsylvania dairy farms in response to changing market
conditions and emerging technologies. The current focus is to develop
economically-viable solutions to issues confronting Pennsylvania dairy
farmers such as dealing with animal waste in an environmentally-
friendly manner, reducing the cost of forage production systems,
including grazing systems, and to develop a better understanding of
decision processes by dairy farmers.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research remains the same,
which is the development of methods to help dairy farmers in the
adoption of new technology and management practices which lead to
improved dairy farm profitability. A farm management survey is complete
and analysis of results is in progress. Farm financial models have been
developed and are undergoing field test on selected farms have been
conducted, and survey instruments are in place to monitor effectiveness
of workshops. Research is currently underway to develop improved models
for nutrient management on northeastern dairy farms, to evaluate the
potential role of intensive grazing systems to replace harvested
forage, and to better understand how decisions are made by dairy farm
families. Refinements of an expert computer based system to assist
dairy farmers in controlling the udder disease, mastitis, is underway.
A study to evaluate the induction of lactation on dairy profitability
is underway. An additional study to evaluate the impact of improved
protein nutrition during late gestation on dairy cow performance has
been initiated.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1992 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $335,000
per year. The fiscal year 1994 appropriation was $329,000 and $296,000
each year in fiscal years 1995-1997. A total of $1,887,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount on non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. During fiscal year 1992, $354,917 were from State
funds,and $16,000 from industry, for a total of $370,417. During fiscal
year 1993, $360,374 were from State funds and $16,000 from Industry for
a total of $376,374. Information is not available for fiscal years
1994-1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at Pennsylvania State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The principal researcher anticipated completion of the
original objectives by March 1994. The original objectives were met.
Availability of continued funding has permitted the institution to
develop a competitively awarded grant program within the institution to
address priority issues related to management of dairy farms. Proposals
are reviewed and ranked by peers in other institutions prior to award.
It is anticipated that awards from the fiscal year 1997 appropriation
will be complete in September 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency accepts technical review of specific proposals
funded by this grant on an annual basis. The overall proposal is
reviewed by the agency on an annual basis. In addition, technical staff
conducted on-site reviews of the program in 1993 and in 1995. The
overall objectives of the work funded by this grant has direct
relationship to the development of an Integrated Management System as
well as to aspects of animal production systems on animal well-being
and impact on the environment.
improved fruit practices, michigan
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
done under the improved fruit practices grant.
Response. This research will involve a multidisciplinary approach
to reduce chemical use on apple, blueberry, and sour cherry, three
important Michigan fruit crops, and improve the management of dry
edible beans and sugar beets. Research will be conducted on crop
management techniques and reduced chemical use.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
research, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes Michigan's need for
this research is to develop and maintain/expand their tree fruit and
small fruits industry. There is a need to improve the culture and
management of dry edible beans and sugar beets.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The planned objectives of the research are to reduce the
chemical contamination of the environment from fruit production and
improve production practices for beans and beets through
multidisciplinary research, including pesticides, and the development
of new nonchemical production methods.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1994. The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $494,000, and for
fiscal years 1995-1997, $445,000 each year. A total of $1,829,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The nonfederal funds and sources provided for this grant
in fiscal year 1994 were $437,338 from state appropriations and
$135,000 from industry, for fiscal year 1995 were $574,494 from state
appropriations and $127,000 from industry and a total of $908,969 for
1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at Michigan State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date of this project is 1998.
The PIs have reported significant progress toward improved cultural
practices for these specialty crops which is expected to reduce the
need for chemical pesticides.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This project has not been subjected to a comprehensive
review. The annual proposals including all of its subprojects are
subjected to CSREES review before they are approved.
institute for food science and engineering, arkansas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Institute for Food Science and Engineering grant.
Response. As the flagship center for the Institute for Food Science
and Engineering, the Center for Food Processing and Engineering has as
its objectives to facilitate and encourage value-added research and
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of processing agricultural
products. Its research program includes seventeen projects which have
been funded and are underway or complete. The Center requires that
researchers acquire the financial support of industry to support their
research. Thus, five additional research projects have been approved
but are awaiting funding from industry. The next request for proposals
by the Institute will be issued on April 4, 1997. The Center for Food
Safety and Quality, with a mission to conduct research on the safety
and quality of foods relative to microbiological and chemical hazards,
will be activated during this grant period.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal, or
the principal researcher, what is the national, regional or local need
for this research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the Institute will
provide technical support and expertise to small and mid-sized food
processors that usually do not possess adequate expertise in-house. The
economy of the southern region will be improved through the creation of
new jobs. The Institute will develop and disseminate scientific
information and provide educational programs related to value-added
further processing, storage and marketing of food products.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research is to establish an
Institute of Food Science and Engineering at the University of
Arkansas-Fayetteville. As noted in an earlier response, the Institute
for Food Science and Engineering and the flagship Center for Food
Processing and Engineering were established and several research
projects were funded through the Center. Research demonstrated promise
for a high pressure water spray to remove phomopsis decay and brown rot
tissue from peaches for processing. Considerable progress was made in
modifying commercially produced rice hull silicate to create silica
gel. Other research results indicated that holding green and ripe
peaches in elevated carbon dioxide atmospheres could reduce acidity and
decay, possibly allowing fruits to ripen prior to processing without
excessive losses to decay. The Institute provided information to new
food business entrepreneurs on food regulations, safety, labeling,
ingredients, packaging, and financial aspects of starting a food
business and on marketing products. Several products were evaluated and
specific recommendations made to those entrepreneurs.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1996, and the appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was $750,000
each year. A total of $1,500,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
include $184,700 in state funds and $93,000 from industry in fiscal
year 1996, and $187,357 in state funds and $166,752 in industry funds
in fiscal year 1997. The Institute received, as a donation worth
$200,000 from industry, a trained sensory panel to qualify and quantify
sensory properties of foods. Industry has pledged an additional
$109,628 which has not yet been received.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at the University of Arkansas
at Fayetteville.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. The principal researcher anticipates that work will be
completed on the original goals in fiscal year 2005. The goals of this
project related to establishing the centers of the Institute are
sequential and have not been fully met. The Center for Human Nutrition
is scheduled to be activated in 1999. It is expected that objectives
related to research and service to food entrepreneurs will be ongoing
and require ongoing support.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of
the proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual
basis. A review of the proposal was conducted on January 13, 1997. The
assessment was that satisfactory progress was demonstrated in meeting
the goals of the Institute, noting that the timetable for activating
the Center for Food Safety and Quality had been accelerated.
integrated pest management/biological control
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Integrated Pest Management grant.
Response. Research supported by Integrated Pest Management special
grants continues to provide a science basis for the development of
alternative approaches for managing pests including insects, mites,
weeds, plant pathogens, and ectoparasites. Emphasis of the program has
been on enhanced natural control. Enhanced natural control emphasizes
increased use of biological control, cultural control, and host
resistance practices and the management of genetic resistance of pests.
Most of the research projects emphasize the development of natural
control practices used in conjunction with selective pesticides and
biopesticides when pest monitoring programs and pest populations
warrant a pesticide application. In recent past years, a limited number
of joint research/extension projects were initiated in the North
Central Region, and in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, three to four joint
projects were funded in each of the four regions. The extension
component of the joint project, focusing on the education component for
implementing new approaches, is funded by extension IPM funds for
special projects. These joint projects are having an impact on the
entire research community. Researchers are planning for the
implementation of research from the beginning and throughout the
research.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Response. This research program addresses the national priority to
address IPM on 75 percent of the nations cropland by the year 2000. In
particular, the research will provide the tools to take IPM to more
bio-intensive levels which will have greater impact on environmental
quality and consumer safety while maintaining the agricultural
productivity, sustainability of protection practices, and
competitiveness of American agriculture. This research program
addresses the regional needs. The program is organized by regional
competitive grant programs, and the request for proposals address both
the national and regional needs and priorities. In the past year,
jointly funded research and extension production region commodity teams
with grower and private sector participation have identified priority
needs. This research program addresses local needs. State IPM commodity
interdisciplinary teams working with growers and private consultants
have identified priority local needs which are addressed in the
regional request for proposals. The fiscal year 1997 requests for
proposals in all four regions have made measurable shifts in emphasis
based on these priority setting activities.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal and current goal is to bring IPM into
the 21st Century with a paradigm shift from past sole dependence on
pesticides to an emphasis on natural control integrated with selective
pesticides and biopesticides when pest population densities warrant
their use. The more recent increase in joint research/extension
collaboration has assisted bringing the accomplishments of research
into implementation reality. It has also provided for better
documentation and measurement of impacts of research and extension
efforts. All four regions have produced 12 to 15 page brochures
documenting the impacts of research and extension efforts. The titles
are indicative of the goals: Integrated Pest Management in the North
Central States, a sustainable approach to managing crop pests, using a
combination of biological, cultural, and chemical tactics that reduce
pests to tolerable levels that minimize economic, health, and
environmental risks; Integrated Pest Management in the Northeast
Region, 1996 update Involving Stakeholders; Integrated Pest Management
in the Southern Region. At the heart of Integrated Pest Management is
its dual focus on improving profitability and protecting vital natural
resources; and Integrated Pest Management in the Western Region. IPM
advances on 25-30 commodities are described in these brochures.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1981, $1,500,000; fiscal years 1982 through 1985,
$3,091,000 per year; fiscal years 1986 through 1989, $2,940,000; fiscal
year 1990, $2,903,000; fiscal year 1991, $4,000,000; fiscal years 1992
and 1993, $4,457,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $3,034,000; and fiscal
years 1995-1997, $2,731,000 each year. A total of $52,668,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Non-federal funds are as follows: for fiscal year 1993,
state appropriations, $841,017, product sales, $33,987, industry
grants, $17,081, and other, $31,737; for fiscal year 1994, state
appropriations, $2,303,458, product sales, $77,157, industry grants,
$210,110, and other, $216,552.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. This research is being carried out in practically all of
the State Agricultural Experiment Stations.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. There is a high priority for continuation of IPM research
and for collaborative linkages with other research, extension,
technology transfer, regulatory, and incentive programs to accomplish
the transitions called for in the administration's policy for reducing
overall risks from the use of pesticides through integrated pest
management programs which lead to more sustainable agricultural
production strategies and reduction in the use of pesticides. The
future will bring more collaboration between program areas that address
pest management building on the increased collaboration between
research and extension. Integration is currently focused on the
commodity production system. These are highly complex systems involving
a network of organizations that impact on the system. Future levels of
integration will address whole farm planning where issues of landscape
ecology can be addressed and better interactions with water quality
programs can take place. The rate of progress will be determined by the
availability of resources.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Due to the complexity of the program, evaluations are
done at a number of levels. All grants awarded are evaluated by peer
scientists in the multiple disciplines comprising IPM. These peer
reviews are conducted in the four regional IPM programs. Peer
scientists are drawn from regions outside of the region conducting the
review. State IPM commodity teams, with growers and private
consultants, review plans and priorities for commodities programs.
Production region commodity development programs have been reviewed by
peer scientists at the national level.
integrated production systems, oklahoma
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Integrated Production Systems, Oklahoma grant.
Response. This grant focuses on the development of efficient
management systems for production of watermelons and blackberries under
intensively managed conditions. The work will address biotic and
abiotic production components under Southeastern Oklahoma conditions
for use in production guidelines. This will include planting densities,
fertilizer studies, weed management and insect and disease control. The
proposal for fiscal year 1996 has been received and is being processed.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for the
research.
Response. The principal researcher believes the need for this
research is focused on the local area of Southeastern Oklahoma, an area
that is economically depressed and in need of alternative crops to
diversify the dominant cow/calf livestock production.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to develop new and
alternative crops to supplement and diversify the cow/calf livestock
agriculture of Southeastern Oklahoma with emphasis on horticultural
crops. Work to date has shown promise for strawberries, blackberries,
cabbage, melons and blueberries. CD-ROM technology transfer to research
results to support an expert system will be developed for grower use.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Work supported by this grant started in fiscal year 1984
and the appropriations were: fiscal year 1984, $200,000; fiscal year
1985, $250,000; fiscal year 1986, $238,000; fiscal years 1987-1989,
$188,000 per year; fiscal years 1990-1991, $186,000 per year; fiscal
year 1992, $193,000; fiscal year 1993, $190,000; fiscal year 1994,
$179,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $161,000 each year. A total of
$2,669,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal
Response. The nonfederal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $165,989 state appropriations in 1991; $160,421 state
appropriations in 1992; and $164,278 state appropriations in 1993.
Nonfederal support for 1994 was $141,850 for state appropriations.
Funds for fiscal year 1995 were $129,552, and for 1996 were $146,000.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being done at the Wes Watkins
Agricultural Research and Extension Center at Lane, Oklahoma, a branch
of the Oklahoma State Agricultural Experiment Station.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original objectives of this project were to develop
production system for alternative crops with economic potential for
southeastern Oklahoma. Each year's funding cycle has address specific
crop and management objectives to be completed over two years time.
These short term objectives have been met for each of the completed two
year projects. However the original objective of developing alternative
cropping systems is very long term and have not been completed.
Mr. Skeen. When the last agency evaluation of this project? Provide
a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Each of the annual project proposals has been put through
the institutions review and is reviewed by CSREES scientists before
approval. In addition to the annual review of individual proposals, a
comprehensive review of the Lane Agricultural Center, where this
research is conducted, was conducted in 1993. This review reviled that
work supported by this grant is central to the mission of that station
and represents an important contribution to the agriculture of the
area.
international arid lands consortium
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the International Arid Lands Consortium.
Response. Fiscal year 1996 was the third year that CSREES funded
the International Arid Lands Consortium. The Forest Service supported
the program during fiscal year 1993 to develop an ecological approach
to multiple-use management and sustainable use of arid and semiarid
lands. Projects that began in 1994-1996 will continue to be funded to
address issues of land reclamation, land use, water resources
development and conservation, water quality, and inventory technology,
e.g. remote sensing.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the Consortium is
devoted to the development, management and reclamation of arid and
semi-arid lands in the United States, Israel, and elsewhere in the
world. The International Arid Lands Consortium will work to achieve
research and development, educational and training initiatives, and
demonstration projects. The current member institutions are the
University of Arizona, The University of Illinois, Jewish National
Fund, New Mexico State University, South Dakota State University, Texas
A&M University, Kingsville. The United States Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service works very closely with The International
Arid Lands Consortium through a service-wide memorandum of
understanding. The IALC's affiliate members include Egypt's Ministry of
Agriculture and Land Reclamation Undersecretarial for Afforestation and
Jordan's Higher Council for Science and Technology.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this consortium is to be
acknowledged as the leading international organization supporting
ecological sustainability of arid and semi-arid lands. To date, 35
projects have been funded, 25 of which are to conduct research and
development, 6 for demonstration projects, and 4 for international
workshops. Funds approximating $1.91 million have been used to fund
these projects.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. International Arid Lands Consortium was incorporated in
1991. Funds were appropriated to the Forest Service in 1993. Additional
funds were received during each of the years that followed. $329,000
has been appropriated from CSREES for fiscal years 1994 through 1997
for total appropriations of $1,316,000 for the 4-year period.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Members of the International Arid Lands Consortium have
provided funds to support the consortium office in Tucson, Arizona, and
for printed materials as needed. Each member has provided travel and
operations support for semi-annual meetings, teleconferences, and other
related activities. In fiscal years 1993-1996, $60,000 in state
appropriations were provided. Industry provided $84,083 and $100,000
and $25,000 in fiscal years 1993, 1995 and 1996, respectively. Amounts
are not yet available for fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is currently being conducted at the University
of Arizona, South Dakota State University, Texas A&M University,
Kingsville, New Mexico State University, University of Illinois, and
several research/education institutions in Israel.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the projects? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. Research projects started in 1993 have been completed.
The projects started in 1994 and 1996 are expected to be completed
within 6 months to 3 years depending upon the nature of the research or
demonstration projects. Several demonstrations projects were completed
and 4 international workshops were held during 1994 through 1996.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This project is evaluated annually based on an annual
progress report and agency participation in the Consortium Board of
Directors meeting. The cognizant staff scientist has reviewed the
project and determined that the research being conducted is in
accordance with the mission of the agency.
iowa biotechnology consortium
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Iowa Biotechnology Consortium grant.
Response. This consortium is the focal point for cooperative
biotechnology research endeavors between Iowa State University, the
University of Iowa and the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa to develop and
test methods to improve wastewater treatment processes for agricultural
wastes, and when possible, to convert by-product materials in
agricultural wastes into useful new products. The overall objectives of
this research are to conduct fundamental and applied research aimed at
enhancing the recovery and utilization of byproduct materials though
studies involving fermentation, enzyme catalysis and bioprocessing. The
expection is that technologies will be developed from the research to
reduce the burden of agricultural bioprocessing wastes on municipal
waste management systems and to transform these wastes into
commercially viable products.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Developments in biotechnology have allowed for the
development of improved management systems that increase the capacity
and sophistication of agricultural waste processing. These researchers
believe that technological breakthroughs are possible to deal
effectively with the increasing burden of agricultural wastes and that
useful byproduct materials can be recovered and recycled through
bioprocessing of wastes, especially fermentation wastes.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goals of this project were aimed at
enhancing the recovery and utilization of by-product materials arising
from new and emerging industries using biotechnology. Recycling
agricultural wastes, isolating useful byproducts and developing value
added processing remain the primary thrusts of the project. The
Consortium has established a network of researchers to assist them in
finding uses for the by-product streams as concentrated steepwater and
to find methods to concentrate by-products for industrial uses. The
Consortium is also making important progress in the bioconversion,
biocatalysis, membrane concentration, and bioseparation of fats and
carbohydrates.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1996?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,225,000; fiscal year 1990, $1,593.000;
fiscal year 1991, $1,756,000; fiscal year 1992, $1,953,000; fiscal year
1993, $2,000,000; fiscal year 1994, $1,880,000; fiscal years 1995-1996,
$1,792,000 each year; and in fiscal year 1997, $1,738,000. A total of
$15,729,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $623,803 from the State of Iowa, $42,813 from the city
of Cedar Rapids in 1991; $768,287 from the State of Iowa, and $365,813
from the city of Cedar Rapids in 1992; $858,113 from the State of Iowa,
and $170,000 from the city of Cedar Rapids in 1993; $841,689 from the
State of Iowa, and $36,000 from the city of Cedar Rapids in 1994; and
$1,016,505 from the State of Iowa, and $36,000 from the city of Cedar
Rapids in 1995.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University and
the University of Iowa, in collaboration with the City of Cedar Rapids.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The Consortium was originally formed between the City of
Cedar Rapids and the participating universities to assist the City in
dealing with wastes associated with corn and oat processing and
milling, biocatalysis to produce high-froctose syrups, and one of the
largest fermentation facilities in the world. No firm date was
established to complete this work. The researchers have worked closely
with the City and the industries generating these wastes and have made
significant progress in analyzing the waste streams and in devising
laboratory procedures for extracting useful products. The City of Cedar
Rapids is planning to invest funds from other sources in special waste
treatment facilities to conduct large scale tests of new treatment
methods.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The Iowa Biotechnology Consortium was evaluated for
scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on January 7, 1997. The
panel recommended approval of the project pending receipt of
supplemental information. The Consortium was also featured in a
biotechnology special grant seminar hosted by the agency on December
16, 1996 at which the principal investigator presented research
progress and highlights to an audience of agency scientists,
administrators, and awards management staff.
jointed goatgrass
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Jointed Goatgrass grant.
Response. Research is being conducted on control systems for
jointed goatgrass in wheat production including integrated cultural
management, weed bank studies, and modeling for management conducted as
sub-projects by several states. The premier research project continues
to be an ``Integrated Management'' study being conducted across states
in the midwest and west. In this study, jointed goatgrass management is
being evaluated based on planting dates, planting density, economic
thresholds, and competitive varieties. Research is also being conducted
on crop rotations, biological control, seed production and spread, and
the development of computer-based decision aids. All funded work has a
technology transfer plan and a national coordinator for technology
transfer to insure that growers are fully informed about all options
for managing this devastating weed. The National Technology Transfer
Coordinator has been hired, with the concurrence of a steering
committee, and that person is housed at the University of Nebraska. To
maximize cooperation among scientists, an annual meeting is held among
all investigators and the national steering committee to strengthen
collaborations and optimize the distribution of limited funds.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Jointed goatgrass infests nearly five million acres of
winter wheat in the west and midwest and is spreading unchecked. It
costs U.S. wheat growers an estimated $145 million annually. Control of
jointed goatgrass in wheat is impossible with current methods because
its seed survives in the soil for five or more years. Jointed goatgrass
has increased rapidly in the past 20 years because of the widespread
adoption of conservation tillage systems. Jointed goatgrass
proliferated in such reduced tillage systems, and it seriously impedes
the universal adoption of such practices. The research involves
scientists from other states. The principal researcher and the National
Wheat Growers Association believe this research is of national and
regional importance.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of this project is to reduce the devastating
effect of jointed goatgrass on wheat production and quality and to
prevent its continued spread into new, non-infested areas. A jointed
goatgrass population model has been constructed including a post-
harvest (fall) seed bank, spring seed band, and fall and spring
germination, seeding mortality, mature plants and seed production. The
underlying jointed goatgrass population model has been constructed with
a vision that the weed management strategies are going to be long-term
in nature and be focused on the impact of crop rotation, tillage and
weather on jointed goatgrass population dynamics.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1994. The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $329,000, and for
fiscal years 1995-1997, $296,000, each year. A total of $1,217,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: for 1994, $82,198 state appropriations, $82,256 from
industry, and $14,871 miscellaneous; for fiscal year 1995, $67,442
state appropriations, $38,496 from industry and $13,304 miscellaneous;
and for fiscal year 1996, an estimated $70,000 state appropriations,
$50,000 from industry, and $14,000 miscellaneous.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research is being conducted by University scientists
in the states with serious infestations including Washington State
University--the principal coordinating institution--Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and South
Dakota.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The project was initiated to accomplish significant
results in about five years. The original objectives are being met, and
the researchers anticipate that the original work may be completed in
fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Each year the grant is peer reviewed and reviewed by
CSREES's senior scientific staff.
landscaping for water quality, georgia
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Landscaping for Water Quality, Georgia grant.
Response. The project is a comprehensive multi-institution, multi-
agency, private producer partnership directed by the University of
Georgia. The researchers believe it will lead to development of
management and siting guidelines for animal agriculture based on
landscape and watershed scale environmental quality considerations.
Participating institutions and agencies are the University of Georgia,
the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, the Middle South
Georgia Soil and Water Conservation District, the USDA Agricultural
Research Service, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the
USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, and
the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Growers from Brooks and
Thomas counties, Georgia are key partners in the project.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The multi-disciplinary research team believes that the
efficiency of modern confinement-based livestock feeding and production
facilities and prevailing economies of scale have led to concentration
of these facilities in several regions of the United States, including
the Southeast. This regional concentration of animal production and
processing has frequently led to degradation of regional water quality
resulting from the excessive discharge of nutrients, organic matter,
and pathogens to receiving waters. One factor contributing to these
problems in the Southeast has been the historical concentration of
animal processing and confinement production facilities in regions with
inadequate crop land for proper management of manure resources. This
research project may provide the knowledge base for the integration of
increased animal production into a regional agricultural system without
sacrificing water quality. The findings will be immediately applicable
to the Southeast.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of this research project is to provide the
knowledge base for the integration of increased animal production into
a regional agricultural system without sacrificing water quality. The
goal will be met by completing five specific objectives over a period
of five years. The planned research is on schedule. Since the project
began on February 1, 1996, significant progress has been made on three
of the five objectives. Work on the final two objectives will begin
once fiscal year 1997 funds become available. Specific accomplishments
include:
1. Completed installation and began sampling for chemical and
biological water quality parameters at seven stream monitoring sites in
the 390 square kilometer Piscola Creek Watershed, and continued
sampling eight stream monitoring sites in the 340 square kilometer
Little River Research Watershed.
2. Nearing completion of Geographical Information System databases
for these two watersheds including information on soils, hydrography,
topography, and landcover.
3. Began compiling a database listing all regulations, guidelines,
and recommended management practices pertaining to animal agriculture
and environmental quality in the southeast region.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1996 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was $300,000.
A total of $600,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Information provided by the University indicates that
$202,000 in state funds will be provided to support this grant during
fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Similar amounts of state support are
anticipated for future years. In addition, funds will be expended by
the other participating non-federal institutions in support of this
grant.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted by an interdisciplinary
team of 19 scientists led by researchers at the University of Georgia's
National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory in
Tifton and Athens, Georgia. The experimental aspects of the project are
being conducted in the coastal plain region of Georgia in watersheds
that are representative of southern Georgia, southeast Alabama, and
north central Florida.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project was January 31, 1998. As discussed earlier,
significant progress has been made on these objectives and they are on
schedule. The anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives is January 31, 2001.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. As this project is still in its first year, a
comprehensive external evaluation has not yet been conducted. However,
the principal researcher is working with us to schedule an evaluation
during 1997.
livestock and dairy policy, new york, and texas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the livestock and dairy policy program grant?
Response. The purpose of this grant is to assess the possible
economic impacts on the U.S. livestock, poultry, and dairy sectors from
various macreconomic, farm, environmental, and trade policies and new
technologies. Both Cornell University and Texas A&M University conduct
analyses of these policies and disseminate the information to
policymakers, farmers, and agribusinessmen. Cornell focuses on dairy
policies, and Texas A&M focuses on policies affecting livestock and
poultry.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. Information on the implications of new and alternative
farm, trade, and macroeconomic policies affecting the livestock and
dairy sectors is of special interest to policy-making officials,
farmers, and others. Such information enables farmers and
agribusinessmen to make necessary adjustments to their operations to
enhance profitability and for public officials to consider alternatives
to sustain adequate supplies and minimize public program costs.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been done to date?
Response. The original goal was to establish a specialized research
program that could provide timely and comprehensive analyses of
numerous policy and technological changes affecting livestock and dairy
farmers and agribusinessmen and advise them and policymakers promptly
of possible outcomes. This goal has been achieved. The program
continues to provide assessments and evaluations of provisions and
proposed changes in agricultural policies, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, and the North American Free Trade Agreement; various
income and excise tax measures; and alternative pricing measures for
milk. The institutions are involved in several current studies relating
to dairy provisions in the 1996 farm legislation. Both institutions
maintain extensive outreach programs to disseminate results throughout
the United States.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $450,000; fiscal year 1990, $518,000; fiscal
years 1991-1993, $525,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $494,000; and
fiscal years 1995-1997, $445,000 each year. A total of $4,372,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $37,420 State appropriations in fiscal year 1991;
$162,086 State appropriations and $133,278 product sales for a total of
$295,364 in fiscal year 1992; and $301,817 State appropriations, $1,412
industry, and $7,121 miscellaneous for a total of $310,350 in fiscal
year 1993; $24,702 State appropriations, and $5,961 industry for a
total of $30,663 in fiscal year 1994; $235,526 State appropriations for
fiscal year 1995; $250,000 in State appropriations for fiscal year
1996; and approximately $245,000 in State funding for fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research is being conducted at Cornell University and
Texas A&M University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original objectives of this project have been
achieved.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. We have conducted no formal evaluations of this project.
Annual proposals for funding, however, are carefully reviewed and work
progress is noted. Our agency contact is also in regular contact with
principal researchers at each institution to discuss progress toward
project objectives.
lowbush blueberry research, maine
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the lowbush blueberry research program
Response. Interdisciplinary research is being conducted on many
aspects of lowbush blueberry culture and processing includes
investigation into factors affecting processing quality, biological
control of insect pests, sustainable pollination, weed, disease and
fertility management, cold hardiness and ground water protection.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Maine produces 99 percent of all lowbush blueberries or
33 percent of all blueberries in the United States. This work is of
major local interest, and helps maintain the continued availability and
high quality of this native fruit commodity. In addition, future
efforts will be made to collaborate with IPM regional and state
representatives in finding solutions to the specified pest concerns.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original research goal was to provide research
answers to unique lowbush blueberry production, pest and processing
problems. Research to date indicates that the field sanitizer was able
to use heat to control insect pests without adversely affecting plant
growth, providing a non-chemical alternative to pest management.
Eumenid wasps were found to control red striped fireworm, providing a
potential biological control. Native leafcutter bees and alfalfa
leafcutter bees were found to increase lowbush blueberry fruit set and
yield, providing an alternative to imported honeybees. Clonal variation
was found to affect stem and flower bud hardiness that will prove to be
important in clonal selection for planting. Control of monolina disease
was found in using 4 ounces of propiconazole instead of 24 ounces of
triforine thereby reducing the chemical needed for control of this
disease. Boron and calcium were found to have more influence on the
ability of the stigma to stimulate pollen germination than the
germinability of the pollen grains themselves. A mechanical harvester
was found to be effective and had yields and fruit quality comparable
to hand harvest, providing growers with a more efficient tool to
harvest blueberries. Economic weed thresholds have been determined for
weed species, thereby giving growers a method to determine when to use
control measures. Mowing proved as effective as wiping to suppress two
of these species, providing a non-chemical control alternative. A rope
wick wiper effectively controls weeds growing higher than blueberry
plants without injuring the crop. Pesticide residues in lowbush
blueberries were found to be well below federal tolerances.
Carboxymethyl cellulose and various gums were found to control berry
leakage, thereby improving quality for use in baked products. Products
for use in food industry are being extracted from cull berries, thereby
improving utilization and reducing waste.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $170,000; fiscal year 1991, $202,000; fiscal
years 1992 and 1993, $185,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $208,000; and
fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997 at $220,000 each year. A total of
$1,610,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Director industry support from blueberry tax funds for
1996 is about $65,000.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of Maine.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original objectives have not yet been met. The
University of Maine researchers estimate that the project will be
concluded at the end of fiscal year 2001.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates this project on a yearly basis as
funding is renewed. Project proposals are peer reviewed by the
University of Maine review mechanism. Progress reports are submitted to
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service on a
yearly basis as part of the review of the proposed project.
maple research, vermont
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Maple research grant.
Response. The research increased understanding of how water moves
from the soil into and through the maple trees, affecting tree growth
and sap production. It examined the relationship of maple decline to
acid precipitation. It measured the effectiveness of various fertilizer
combinations in improving the health of declining maple trees. It
identified sources of lead contamination in maple products and began
testing lead-free equipment and possible commercial methods for
removing lead from maple syrup.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. Maple products are an important source of seasonal income
in maple-growing areas of rural America. Identifying the source of
contamination during processing and identifying commercial methods to
remove lead from products is important to assuring consumers that these
food products are not harmful.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished?
Response. The goal of this research is to conduct research on maple
tree physiology, management of sugar maple stands, and related aspects
of the maple industry to benefit the maple industry in Vermont and the
Northeast. The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved an amendment to
these goals to permit the research to focus on lead in maple products.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $100,000; fiscal years 1986-1987, $95,000
per year; fiscal years 1988-1989, $100,000 per year; fiscal years 1990-
1993, $99,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $93,000; and fiscal years
1995-1997, $84,000 each year. A total of $1,231,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $52,220 state appropriations and $10,345 product sales
in 1991; $49,450 state appropriations and $18,950 product sales in
1992; $49,575 state appropriation and $23,860 product sales in 1993;
$44,543 state appropriation, $29,321 product sales, and $25,000 local
support in 1994; $60,856 state appropriation, $12,000 product sales,
and $19,090 local support in 1995; $83,000 state appropriation and
$15,000 product sales in 1996; and $67,000 state appropriation, $11,000
local support, and $15,000 product sales in 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted at the Vermont
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives.
Response. The work relative to maple tree physiology and management
of maple stands has been completed so far as this project is concerned,
but it continues under sponsorship of the U.S. Forest Service. The new
objective of identifying sources of heavy metals in maple products and
reducing them is underway. Anticipated completion date is 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This project is evaluated annually by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture through review of the project and any previous
accomplishments. Although satisfactory progress was being made on the
tree physiology and maple tree management aspects of the project, the
project was amended to focus on lead in maple products.
michigan biotechnology consortium
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Michigan Biotechnology Consortium grant.
Response. The objective of the Michigan Biotechnology Consortium's
research program is to develop bioprocessing technology to manufacture
products from agricultural raw materials, to increase the utilization
of raw materials, reduce surpluses, and to degrade agricultural and
associated wastes, thereby decreasing environmental costs of
agricultural products and processes. Bioprocessing may include
fermentation, an enzymatic step, chemical catalysis, or physical
modification of agricultural raw materials.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the results from the
research to develop bioprocessing technology to manufacture value-added
products from agricultural raw materials, which increases their
utilization and reduces agricultural commodity surpluses and
environmental costs, will contribute to regional and national
priorities.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research remains to select and
develop market-viable technologies that will form the basis new
companies, new jobs, and additional tax revenues produced for state,
local and Federal governments. The Michigan Biotechnology Institute and
Michigan State University have succeeded in developing numerous
technologies that are now in the marketplace. Examples include the
following: A process was developed to produce lactic acid through
fermentation using corn as the feedstock resulting in a polymer for
biodegradable plastics and a disinfectant. The properties of the
polymer make it useful for non-woven applications such as medical
packaging, clear blister bags, diapers, etc. Corn was used as a
feedstock to develop plant growth formulations to enhance plant growth
and productivity and reduce nitrogen fertilizer requirements. Growth
promoters for high volume or high value crops have the potential for
productivity increases of 15 percent and a reduction in nitrogen
fertilizer use of 25 percent. Biodegradable plastic resins developed
from cornstarch were made to product compostable films for agricultural
mulch and other soluble firms, and for cellulose-base engineered
theremoplastic resins. Biodegradable plastic resins from cornstarch
were also developed for moldable products such as disposable cutlery,
plastic containers, toys and toothbrushes. The market for resins for
use in formulation and extrusion of plastics for all applications is in
excess of $2 billion annually. Corn was also used for the development
of all-natural flavors and derivatives including a salty flavor
compound that can be produced to taste in non-sodium and non-potassium
forms. Low-cost, readily-available carbohydrates were used to produce
high-quality, high-value optically-pure chiral intermediates for the
pharmaceutical and agrochemical industries: A sand/manure separation
system for dairy farmers was developed to cost-effectively separate
manure from sand and recycle both components. Many of these products
are being explored for commercial development through licensing
agreements with industrial partners or new company startups. In
addition, there are many agri-based industrial products under
development including: several succinate-based green chemicals for
surfactants and detergents, new food ingredients and flavors, paint
removers, adhesives, lubricants, and plastic resins; green solvents
from fermentation of corn-derived materials; ethanol produced from
cellulose; natural food preservatives, improved enzymes for processing
starch and fructose production, food flavors and pigments, feed
ingredients to improve digestibility of forage-based animal feed;
biomass-based animal feeds; and agricultural waste treatment processes
to improve methods to clean up herbicides and pesticides.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,750,000; fiscal year 1990, $2,160,000;
fiscal year 1991, $2,246,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $2,358,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994, $2,217,000; fiscal year 1995, $1,995,000; and
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $750,000 per year. A total of $16,584,000
has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $1,750,000 in State of Michigan appropriations,
$160,000 from industry, and $1,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1991;
$1,750,000 in State of Michigan appropriations, $175,000 from industry,
and $1,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1992; $1,750,000 in State of
Michigan appropriations and $100,000 from industry in 1993; $1,750,000
in State of Michigan appropriations, $175,000 from industry, and
$100,000 from miscellaneous in 1994; and $200,000 in State of Michigan
appropriations and $2,035,000 from industry in 1995; $1,250,000 in
State of Michigan appropriations and $350,000 from industry in 1996. A
total of $13,545,000 has been provided to support this work by non-
federal sources.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research is being conducted on the campus of Michigan
State University and at the Michigan Biotechnology Institute.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The Institute had reported specific milestones that it
intended to be accomplished within the five-year period ending in
fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The Michigan Biotechnology Institute was evaluated for
scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on January 7, 1997. The
panel recommended approval of the project pending receipt of
supplemental information on administrative aspects of the project. The
Intitute was also featured in a biotechnology special grant seminar
hosted by the agency on December 16, 1996 at which the principal
investigator presented research progress and highlights to an audience
of agency scientists, administrators, and awards management staff.
midwest advanced food manufacturing alliance, nebraska
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Midwest advanced food manufacturing alliance
grant.
Response. The stated purpose of the Midwest Advanced Food
Manufacturing Alliance is to expedite the development of new
manufacturing and processing technologies for food and related products
derived from United States produced crops and livestock. The Alliance
involves research scientists in food science and technology, food
engineering, nutrition, microbiology, computer science, and other
relevant areas from 12 leading Midwestern universities and private
sector researchers from numerous U.S. food processing companies. Close
cooperation between corporate and university researchers assure that
the latest scientific advances are applied to the most relevant
problems and that solutions are efficiently transferred and used by the
private sector. Fiscal year 1997 funds will support research from June
1, 1997 through May 31, 1998.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
project?
Response. The principal researcher believes the food manufacturing
industry is the number one manufacturing industry in the Midwestern
region and that opportunities for trade in high value processed food
products will grow exponentially on a worldwide basis. The researcher
believes the Alliance is positioned to fill the void in longer range
research and development for the food industry.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal, as stated previously, was to expedite the
development of new manufacturing and processing technologies for food
and related products derived from United States produced crops and
livestock. This is accomplished by conducting a research proposal
competition among faculty from the 12 participating universities to
fund research projects where matching funds are available from
industry. Fourteen (14) projects were funded from fiscal year 1994
funds with completion and final reports due by May 1, 1996. Ten (10)
projects were funded from fiscal year 1995 funds with anticipated
completion and final reports due by August 31, 1997. Ten (10) projects
were also funded from fiscal year 1996 funds with anticipated
completion and final reports due by May 31, 1998. Proposals are
reviewed for scientific merit by independent scientists, and final
selection of projects includes consideration of industrial interest and
commitment on non-Federal matching funds.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1994. The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $470,000, and for
fiscal years 1995-1997, $423,000 each year. A total of $1,739,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Industry matching funds were $823,148 in fiscal year
1994, $414,164 in fiscal year 1995, and $576,600 in fiscal year 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work is being coordinated by the Nebraska
Agricultural Experiment Station at Lincoln. Specific research projects
are also being conducted at seven (7) other universities that are part
of the Alliance.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. The overall objectives of the Alliance are ongoing.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of
the proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual
basis. A review of the proposal was conducted on December 20, 1996. The
principal investigator has provided descriptions of projects funded by
this grant.
midwest agricultural products, iowa
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Midwest agricultural products program.
Response. The Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information
Center does applied research to improve the global competitiveness and
marketability of agricultural products produced in the Midwest and
disseminates the results to small and medium-sized agribusinesses.
Projects include analyses of potential markets for U.S. agricultural
products and equipment/technology in several countries; attitudes of
foreign consumers; and development of new/improved U.S. products to
meet foreign needs.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
research, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal research believes that agribusiness firms
in the United States, especially small to medium-sized firms, have a
large unrealized potential to expand export sales and foreign business
ventures. These untapped opportunities exist in well-established growth
markets in the Pacific Rim and in newly opening markets such as Mexico,
China, and Eastern Europe. The reluctance of small to medium-sized
firms to explore these market opportunities is, in part, due to the
high cost of market information and analysis and the perceived high
risk of doing business in new markets with unfamiliar partners.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research, and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal is to enhance export of agricultural
commodities, value-added products, and equipment produced by Midwestern
agribusiness firms through research and education programs utilizing a
close-working relationships with those firms.
In the past year, several studies were completed and distributed to
interested firms, and new ones were initiated. Completed studies
included: an analysis of conditions and prospects for agribusiness
ventures in Egypt; market analyses for U.S. agricultural products in
Cameroon, Senegal, and Cote d'Ivoire; an assessment of market
opportunities for food processing equipment in China; Mexican consumer
response to U.S. pork products; comparative advantage of U.S. pork in
North American markets; impact of NAFTA on Midwest beef industry; an
evaluation of the need for government regulation for maintaining or
improving the quality of 12 export commodities; case studies of 16
outstanding food and agricultural exporters; evaluation of 60 varieties
of corn for dry milling for the Mexican market.; suitability of
microsoy flakes for markets in Pacific Rim and African countries; and
use of the Internet for marketing goods and services. In addition
several seminars and conferences were held, ``Global Connections''
newsletter was published regularly, and business contacts database kept
up to date. As a result of much work to establish trading relationships
with China, the Des Monies sister-city of Shijiazhuang, China
established a trade office in Des Monies.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1992. The appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $700,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994, $658,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $592,000
per year. A total of $3,834,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows; $185,495 State appropriations and $373,897 industry for
a total of $559,392 in fiscal year 1992; $183,192 State appropriations
and $318,966 industry for a total of $502,158 in fiscal year 1993;
$127,948 State appropriations and $500,394 industry for a total of
$628,342 in fiscal year 1994; $258,053 State appropriations and
$389,834 industry for a total of $647,887 for fiscal year 1995;
$165,425 State appropriations for fiscal year 1996; and $162,883 State
appropriations for fiscal year 1997. Industry contributions continue
but were not reported for 1996 & 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The program is carried out by Iowa State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 24
months, however, the objectives for expanding the export capacity of
small to medium-sized agribusiness firms is an ongoing regional and
national concern. The current phase of the program will be completed in
1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in January
1997 as it evaluated the project proposal for 1997 and concluded that
the Midwest Agribusiness trade and Research Center at Iowa State
University has a record of producing research and trade information for
agribusinesses in the Midwest and other states. Research results appear
in several professional journals and popular press.
milk safety, pennsylvania
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the milk safety grant.
Response. The overall goal of the milk safety program is to provide
insight into factors that help ensure an adequate and safe milk supply.
Toward that end, the research has focused on factors that affect milk
production, processing, manufacturing, and consumption. Special
attention has been given to ways of preventing and/or treating
pathogens that enter the milk supply.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that the question of
microbial safety is of paramount interest to the milk/dairy industry at
all levels. Dairy products such as milk, nonfat dry milk, cheese,
butter, and cream have been associated with several large outbreaks of
staphylococcal food poisoning, and coagulase negative Staphylococcus
infections are one of the most common intramammary infections of dairy
cattle. Listeria monocytogenes is present in about 4% of raw milk, and
it has the potential to grow to dangerous levels during refrigeration
and storage, making pasteurization critical in preventing foodborne
illnesses from this organism. Bovine mastitis is the most important
infectious disease affecting the quality and quantity of milk produced
in the nation, costing producers an average $180 per cow per year. The
researchers believe ensuring safety of dairy products impacts not only
consumer health and confidence in the safety of the food supply, but
economic viability as well.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The research is aimed at minimizing or eliminating future
foodborne disease outbreaks from milk and dairy products. A key
accomplishment includes the discovery of potential approaches of
enhancing natural defense mechanisms of the bovine mammary gland
through vaccination and immunoregulation. Discoveries of factors
influencing growth of Staphylococcus aureus could be used to prevent or
contain growth of this pathogen in foods. Researchers have identified
and sequenced a gene from this bacterium that is essential for growth
under stressful conditions. A computer model of Listeria monocytogenes
growth in dairy foods under dynamic refrigeration conditions and during
extended storage is under development to provide producers and
processors with a proven technology for further enhancing the safety of
fluid milk and related products. Researchers have elucidated conditions
that significantly enhance the survival of Listeria monocytogenes
during heat challenge. Research also revealed that consumers having
high general concern about milk and dairy product safety and nutrition
were more likely to be female, to have lower levels of education, be
non-white and report more attention to scientific news, health and
nutrition news and news about government food safety regulatory
attention.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded for milk consumption and milk
safety from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal years 1986 through
1989, $285,000 per year; fiscal year 1990, $281,000; fiscal year 1991,
$283,000; fiscal year 1992, $284,000; fiscal year 1993, $184,000;
fiscal years 1994-1997, $268,000 per year. A total of $3,244,000 has
been appropriated for milk safety and milk consumption.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The University estimates that non-federal funds
contributed to this project include the following costs and salaries:
$265,000 for fiscal year 1991; $224,700 for fiscal year 1992; $142,600
for fiscal year 1993; and $252,168 for fiscal year 1995. No data are
currently available for fiscal years 1994 and 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The research is being conducted at the Pennsylvania State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. The researchers anticipate that research supported by
this grant should be concluded in 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of
the proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual
basis. Since the agency has not yet received the proposal in support of
the fiscal year 1997 proposal, the last review of the proposal was
conducted on March 8, 1996. At that time, the agency science specialist
believed that the projects addressed issues related to safety of milk
and dairy food products, were scientifically sound, and that
satisfactory progress was being demonstrated using previously awarded
grant funds.
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the minor use animal drug program grant.
Response. The National Agricultural Program to Approve Animal Drugs
for Minor Species and Uses (NRSP-7) was established to obtain Food and
Drug Administration clearance of animal drugs intended for use in minor
species and for minor uses in major species. The funds for the special
research grant are divided between the four regional animal drug
coordinators and the headquarters at Michigan State University for
support of the drug clearance program. The NRSP-7 funds are being
utilized by the regional animal drug coordinators and by allocation to
State Agricultural Experiment Stations to develop data required for
meeting clearance requirements. Participants in the research program
consist of the regional coordinators, State Agricultural Experiment
Stations, USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the U.S.
Department of Interior, schools of veterinary medicine, and the drug
industry. Each year priorities are established for the various species
categories including small ruminants, game birds, fur-bearing animals,
and aquaculture species. The fiscal year 1996 grants terminate between
April 1997 and September 1998. The 1997 grant proposals have been
received and are being reviewed.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Animal agriculture throughout the U.S. has relied on
chemical and pharmaceutical companies to provide their industry with
safe efficacious drugs to combat diseases. The need for approval from
FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) for drugs to control
diseases in minor species and for minor uses in major species has
increased with intensified production units and consumer demand for
residue-free meat and animal products. The high cost incurred to obtain
data required by federal, regional, and local regulations to approve
these drugs, when coupled with limited economic returns, has limited
the availability of approved drugs for minor uses and minor species.
The program provides research needed to develop and ultimately
culminate in drug approval by FDA/CVM for the above purposes. The goals
are accomplished through the use of regional animal drug coordinators
as well as a national coordinator to prioritize the need, secure
investigators at federal, state and private institutions, and oversee
the research and data compilation necessary to meet federal regulations
for approval. All drug approvals are national, although industry use
may be regional. For example, aquaculture is concentrated in specific
geographic sections of the country. The Administration believes this
research to be of national, regional and local need.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original NRSP-7 goal to obtain FDA clearance of
animal drugs intended for use in minor species and for minor uses in
major species remains as the dominant goal. In recent years, the
research program has expanded or given additional emphasis to
aquaculture species, veal calves and sheep. In addition, several new
animal drug requests from the game bird industry were received during
the past year. The importance of environmental assessment, residue
withdrawals and occupational safety have increasingly been given more
attention during the approval process to help assure consumer
protection. To date, 282 drug requests have been submitted to the Minor
Use Animal Drug Program for clearance. Working in conjunction with many
universities, the U.S. Department of Interior, ARS, and numerous
pharmaceutical companies, 24 research projects are now active and will
be continued through 1997 to establish data for clearances. Twenty four
public master files have been published in the Federal Register
providing clearance for drug use in minor species. Two additional
public master files are currently being completed and several others
are under review by FDA.
The Center for Veterinary Medicine is cooperating and supporting
this program to the fullest extent. The program is a prime example of
Federal interagency cooperation in coordination with academic
institutions, pharmaceutical industries and commodity interests to
effectively meet an urgent need.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
amount of $240,000 per year for fiscal years 1982-85; $229,000 per year
for fiscal years 1986-1989; $226,000 for fiscal year 1990; $450,000 for
fiscal year 1991; $464,000 per year for fiscal years 1992 and 1993;
$611,000 for fiscal year 1994; and $550,000 for fiscal years 1995-1997.
A total of $5,741,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $156,099 state appropriations. $29,409 industry, and
$11,365 miscellaneous in 1991; $265,523 state appropriations, $1,182
product sales, $10,805 industry, and $59 miscellaneous in 1992;
$212,004 state appropriations, $315 industry; and $103 miscellaneous in
1993; $157,690 state appropriations, and $7,103 miscellaneous in 1994;
$84,359 state appropriations in 1995; and $191,835 non-federal support
in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The grants have been awarded to the four regional animal
drug coordinators located at Cornell University, the University of
Florida, Michigan State University and the University of California-
Davis, and to program Headquarters at Michigan State University.
Research is conducted at these universities and through allocation of
these funds for specific experiments at the State Agricultural
Experiment Stations, ARS, the U.S. Department of Interior, and in
conjunction with several pharmaceutical companies.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. Selected categories of the Special Research Grants
program address important national/regional research initiatives. The
overall objectives established cooperatively with FDA and industry are
still valid. However, specific objectives continually are met and
revised to reflect the changing priorities for FDA, industry, and
consumers. Research projects for this program have involved 20
different animal and aquaculture species with emphasis given in recent
years to research on drugs for the expanding aquaculture industry and
increasing number of requests from the sheep, veal calf, and game bird
industries. The minor use animal drugs program involves research on
biological systems that by their nature are ever changing and
presenting new challenges to agriculture. Especially with the new
sensitivities about safety and the environment, there is a high
priority for continuation of these ongoing projects.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency conducted a formal review of the Minor Use
Animal Drug Program in 1991. The program was found to be very
productive and it was recommended that increased financial support
should be sought in order to meet the national needs identified for the
program. GAO also conducted a review of the program in 1991 and
recommended additional support for the program. Each year the project
is peer reviewed and twice a year the agency and representatives of the
program meet with FDA to evaluate progress and to prioritize research.
Biannually, a workshop is held to identify priorities for the program
whereby producers, pharmaceutical companies, FDA, and researchers
participate.
molluscan shellfish, oregon
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Molluscan Shellfish grant.
Response. The research under this program was initiated in fiscal
year 1995. A repository for the conservation of genetic material of
molluscan shellfish was established during the first year of the
project. This repository is serving as a source of genetic material for
current breeding programs aimed at commercial production of shellfish
with desirable traits.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The researchers indicate that there is a national need
for a molluscan broodstock development program to benefit the
commercial industry through conservation, genetic manipulation and wise
management of the genetic resources of molluscan shellfish.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goals of this research program are to establish a
repository for genetic materials of molluscan shellfish, to establish
breeding programs for commercial production of molluscan shellfish, and
to establish a resource center for the industry, researchers, and other
interested parties in the United States and abroad.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1995 with an appropriation of $250,000; fiscal year 1996 was $300,000;
and fiscal year 1997 is $400,000. A total of $950,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The university estimates a total of $135,454 of non-
federal funding in fiscal year 1995 primarily from state sources; in
fiscal year 1996 no cost sharing provided.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at Oregon State University,
Rutgers University, and the University of California at Davis.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. Although the specific research objectives outlined in the
original proposal were to be completed in 1996, researchers anticipated
that the original broad objectives would be completed in 1999. Progress
has been made on major components of the research program. The
anticipated completion date is for the broad research objectives is
still 1999. The specific research outlined in the present proposal will
be completed in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to submit an accomplishment
report when the new proposal is submitted to CSREES for funding. The
1996 review indicated that the researchers were well qualified to
conduct the research, the research is being conducted in close
cooperation with the private sector.
multi-commodity research, oregon
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the multi-commodity research program.
Response. The purpose of this research program is to provide
agricultural marketing research and analysis to support Pacific
Northwest producers and agribusiness in penetrating new and expanding
Pacific Rim markets for value-added products. The program examines the
potential for increasing the competitiveness and economic value added
of Pacific Northwest agriculture through improvements in food
production, processing, and trade by assisting decision makers in
developing economic and business strategies.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that Oregon and the
other Pacific Northwest States produce a wide variety of agricultural
commodities and products with commercial potential for export to
Pacific Rim countries. Research and analysis is necessary to guide
agricultural producers and processors in assessing these markets and
developing market strategies and vlaue-added products, and marketing
strategies tailored to specific Pacific Rim markets.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research, and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of this proposed research project is to gain
better scientific understanding of the technical, economic and social
relationships that define Oregon's value-added agricultural sector, and
examine how these factors affect the economic performance of this
sector. Project objectives were to:
1. Develop a pilot agricultural economic growth assessment model
for Oregon's farm and value-added agricultural products. While
developed as an Oregon-specific model, it is anticipated that the
resulting approach and methodologies will be applicable to other
Pacific Northwest state economies.
2. Conduct and coordinate applied research focused on understanding
the factors affecting the global competitiveness of Oregon agriculture
and the roles of public policies influencing the long-term success of
the industry.
3. Reassess and modify as necessary existing economic performance
benchmarks designated for the Oregon agricultural industry, and create
strategies and actionable targets for industry performance to be
achieved within defined time periods.
4. Encourage and facilitate applied, industry-level research into
value-added agricultural trade, marketing and policy issues affecting
Oregon and the Pacific Northwest.
5. Assess, on an on-going basis, related agricultural trade and
marketing research across multidisciplinary fields at Oregon State
University and other universities throughout the region. This will
include work with affiliated universities to establish research
projects that further the development of agricultural products,
processes, or international markets.
6. Establish, in collaboration with the Asian wheat foods industry,
criteria for development of noodle of varieties best suited to Asian
markets. This will enhance the competitiveness of U.S. wheats in the
Asian wheat foods markets through the accurate description of wheat
quality characteristics and the exploitation of wheat blends, an
inherent strength of the U.S. multi-class wheat delivery system.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The research began in fiscal year 1993 with an
appropriation of $300,000. The fiscal year 1994 appropriation was
$282,000, and fiscal years 1995 through 1997 appropriations are
$364,000 for each year. The total amount appropriated is $1,674,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funding provided for this grant was
$168,824 State appropriations in fiscal year 1992; $177,574 State
appropriations in fiscal year 1993; and $162,394 State appropriations
in fiscal year 1994. Due to a change in university policy, the
university has not reported the amount of non-federal funds
appropriated for fiscal years 1995-1997..
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The research program will be carried out at Oregon State
University in Corvallis, and at the Agricultural Marketing and Trade
Program in Portland, Oregon.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. This Special Grant is awarded on a year-by-year basis.
Thus, Oregon State University has traditionally requested funds for
this project on an annual basis and has budgeted the funds to
individual sub-projects on that basis. Progress on original objectives
is as follows: baseline data has been accumulated, an economic growth
assessment model is being formulated and tested, global competitiveness
is being assessed for value-added Pacific Northwest agricultural
products, targets for performance are being worked out with
agricultural industries to meet the demands for noodle production for
Asian markets. Anticipated completion date is 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency reviews progress each year when a new proposal
is submitted. We believe satisfactory progress is being achieved.
multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture, hawaii
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research funded
under the multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture research grant in
Hawaii.
Response. In fiscal year 1993, the university redirected this
research program to address the opportunities of alternative
aquaculture production systems, including the ancient Hawaiian fish
ponds on the island of Molokai. The university has developed a
community based research identification process and has developed
specific research projects to be included in this program. Current
research includes work in the area of edible seaweed cultivation and
the culture of the Pacific threadfin, a species indigenous to Hawaii.
Previous research under this program led to the development of
coproduction of shrimp and oysters in aquacultural systems. The
technology developed from this program has been commercialized.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researchers indicate that the primary need
for this research is to assist the native Hawaiians in improving the
profitability and sustainability of the ancient Hawaiian fish ponds and
other appropriate aquaculture systems as part of a total community
development program.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this program was to develop
technology for the coproduction of shrimp and oysters in aquacultural
production systems. Research led to the development of oyster
production systems that have been field tested under commercial
conditions. The current research effort is aimed at developing
sustainable commercial aquaculture production systems on the island of
Molokai. Hatchery techniques have been developed for the culture of the
Pacific threadfin. Techniques for the culture of two edible aquatic
plants have been refined. Multidimensional field testing and evaluation
of existing and restored ancient Hawaiian fish ponds is currently
underway.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This research was initiated in fiscal year 1987 and
$152,000 per year was appropriated in fiscal years 1987 through 1989.
The fiscal year 1990-1993 appropriations were $150,000 per year;
$141,000 in fiscal year 1994; and $127,000 in fiscal years 1995-1997,
each year. A total of $1,578,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The university reports a total of $137,286 of non-federal
funding for this program in fiscal years 1991-1994, $318,468 in fiscal
year 1995. The primary source of non-federal funding was from state
sources.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted through the University of
Hawaii on the island of Molokai.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The completion date for the original project was 1993.
The original objectives were met. The specific research outlined in the
current proposal will be completed in fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to provide an accomplishment
report when the new grant proposal is submitted to CSREES for funding.
In addition, in 1996 the CSREES program manager conducted a site visit
to Molokai to meet with the principal investigator and industry
cooperators. The 1996 review indicated that progress has been made in
the implementation of the program despite the challenges of developing
a community based program in such a unique social and cultural
environment.
national biological impact assessment program
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the National Biological Impact Assessment Program grant.
Response. The National Biological Impact Assessment Program was
established to facilitate and assess the safe application of new
technologies for the genetic modification of animals, plants and micro-
organisms to benefit agriculture and the environment. This program was
established in fiscal year 1989.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. During the last decade there has been an explosion of new
information produced by rapid advances in biotechnology and its
beneficial application to agriculture and the environment. The research
proposed for this program fulfills an important national need to
provide scientists easy access to relevant information that will
facilitate the preparation of scientific proposals that comply with the
oversight and regulatory requirements for testing potential
biotechnology products and foster the safe application of biotechnology
to benefit agriculture and the environment. This program supports the
agricultural and environmental biotechnology community by providing
useful information resources to scientists, administrators, regulators,
teachers and the interested public.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the National Biological Impact
Assessment Program was to provide easy access to reliable information
on public health and environmental safety of agricultural biotechnology
research. Its objectives were to increase the availability, timeliness
and utility of relevant information to the biotechnology research
community; facilitate the compliance of biotechnology research with
oversight and regulatory requirements for testing biotechnology
products; and provide informational resources to the scientific
community that would foster the safe application of biotechnology to
agriculture and the environment. This same goal continues today. Each
year much new information is added and integrated into the computerized
database. The system has evolved to adapt new computer technologies and
is now available via internet and the World Wide Web. This computer-
based information system now includes texts of Federal biotechnology
regulations, proposed rules and policy statements; databases of biotech
companies, and research centers, institutional biosafety committees and
state regulatory contacts; resource lists of publications, directories,
bibliographies and meetings; monthly newsletters developed and
distributed by this program; relevant Federal Register announcements;
and links to other electronic information resources. In addition, this
program provides biosafety training through workshops for academic and
corporate scientists, biosafety officers and state regulators. A Field
Test Notebook has been developed as a reference text for these
workshops.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $125,000; fiscal year 1990, $123,000; fiscal
years 1991-1993, $300,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $282,000; and
fiscal years 1995-1997, $254,000 per year. A total of $2,192,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The co-principal investigator of this grant is Head of
the Department of Biochemistry and Anaerobic Microbiology at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. The university contributes
his time to administer this grant which amounts to approximately $5,000
each year.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This grant award is with Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University. Former and current partners in the program
include The Pennsylvania State University, Louisiana State University,
North Carolina Biotechnology Center, University of Arizona, University
of Missouri, Michigan State University, Purdue University, and the
National Agricultural Library.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. There remains a continuing need to address the safety of
field testing of genetically modified organisms to benefit agriculture
and the environment. This continues to be a rapidly expanding field.
Increasing amounts of new information needs to be properly integrated
into the computerized information system each year. This program has
been very successful in providing essential, updated information on the
conduct of safe field experiments. Thus, the program remains a high
priority and needs to be continued.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The National Biological Impact Assessment Program was
extensively reviewed by an external panel of scientists in October
1994. The review report was highly complimentary regarding the
Information Systems for Biotechnology funded by this special grant and
recommended continuation of this program. The FY 97 proposal was peer
reviewed and highly recommended for funding. Peer reviewers
consistently conclude that the Information Systems for Biotechnology
supported by this grant current, highly relevant, and useful
information for the biotechnology research community. Scientists rely
on this database as a source of current and accurate information in a
rapidly changing field of science.
nematode resistance genetic engineering, new mexico
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering Project grant.
Response. This research is designed to investigate naturally
occurring compounds from diverse sources that may confer pesticidal
resistance if introduced into agronomic plants. The main target pests
are plant parasitic nematodes. The work is using molecular biological
techniques to incorporate genes into agronomic plant which will shorten
the time frame to produce transgenic plants. Progress includes the a
Diptheria A toxin has been engineered behind a root-knot promoter. The
promoter triggers the toxin to kill the nurse cell, which is necessary
for nematode development. Two proteinase inhibitor genes have been
constructed and have been inserted into crop plants. The expression
rate however is low at this time. Other genes that promote toxins have
been constructed and inserted into experimental and crops plants. The
bioassay with targeted pest appear very promising.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
research, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that the successful
development of these techniques and subsequence transfer of nematode
resistant genes into agromic plants will provide an environmentally-
sound system for all plants susceptible to plant parasitic nematodes.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to provide an
alternative approach for the control of plant parasitic nematodes
through the use of molecular biological technologies to transfer
pesticide resistant to plants. A nematode-stimulated promoter element
was engineered for insertion in front of a bacteria toxin. A unique
technique utilizing insect intestinal membrane vesicles were used as
tools for detection of specific protein binding domains. The synthetic
gene, CRY3A Bt has been successful in field trains on potato and
eggplants.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991 and the appropriations for fiscal years 1991-1993 was $150,000 per
year; $141,000 was appropriated in 1994: $127,000 in fiscal years 1995-
1997, each year. A total of $972,000 has been appropriated thus far.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $65,000 state appropriations in 1991; $62,000 in state
appropriations in 1992; $75,000 in state appropriations in 1994; and
$75,000 in 1995. For 1996, the University and the Plant Genetic
Engineering Laboratory are providing matching contributions in faculty
and staff salaries, facilities, equipment maintenance and replacement,
and administrative support. In 1997, there are no matching non-federal
funds.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the New Mexico State
University, and at collaborating universities in the region.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The estimated completion date for this project is
estimated to be 2001.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The last evaluation of this project was a merit review
conducted December 19, 1996. In summary, the overall goal of this
project is to use molecular biological techniques to develop pesticide
capability in plants of agronomic importance. The research
accomplishments demonstrated the feasibility of insertion of toxin
genes into plants for expression against nematodoes. The use of the
synthetic CRY3A Bt gene has been successful in potato and eggplant in
the field trials.
nonfood agricultural products program, nebraska
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Nonfood Agricultural Products Program grant.
Response. This work focuses on the identification of specific
market niches that can be filled by products produced from agricultural
materials, developing the needed technology to produce the product, and
working with the private sector to transfer the technology into
commercial practice. Major areas of application include starch-based
polymers, use of tallow as diesel fuel, improvements in ethanol
production, use of vegetable oil as drip oil for irrigation wells,
production of levulinic acid, the extraction of wax from grain sorghum
and production of microcrystalline cellulose from crop biomass.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes our ability to produce
agricultural commodities exceeds our needs for food and feed. These
commodities are environmentally-friendly feedstocks which can be used
in the production of many biochemicals and biomaterials that have
traditionally been produced from petroleum. The production of the
commodities and the value-added processing of these commodities is
regional in scope.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The objectives of the Center are to identify niche
markets for industrial utilization of agricultural products, improve
and develop conversion processes as needed for specific product
isolation and utilizat6ion, provide technical, marketing and business
assistance to industries, and coordinate agricultural industrial
materials research at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Accomplishments include developing a formula that combines starch from
corn and wheat, plastic resin from polystyrene and
polymethylmethacrylate and compatibilizing agents to make loose fill
packaging materials. Collaborations with the private sector to optimize
the technology and to initiate a startup company are ongoing. Crude
degummed and dried soybean oil has been proven to be an effective drip
oil for irrigation wells. Archer Petroleum in Omaha is developing a
marketing plan for regional distribution through 2500 distributors.
Crude beef tallow has been converted to methyl esters and studied as
diesel fuel. Fuel tests and extensive engine studies have shown it to
be compatible with petroleum diesel and diesel engines. Starch has been
converted to levulinic acid using acid hydrolysis and an extruder. As
an antifreeze, levulinic acid has a freezing point of -18 degrees C,
which is not as low as conventional antifreeze but is environmentally
friendly. Other industrial uses of levulinic acid need to be explored.
Protein films have been made and evaluated for potential use as
coatings and in laminated packaging materials. These films may have a
unique application for use as sprayed-in-place agricultural mulches.
Seeds or plants cold be easily planted by puncturing the film on the
soil surface. Preliminary studies show significant potential for such
film applications in controlling soil erosion.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The funding levels for this project are $109,000 in 1990;
$110,000 per year in fiscal years 1991-1993; $103,000 in fiscal year
1994; $93,000 in fiscal year 1995; and $64,000 in fiscal years 1996 and
1997. A total of $763,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-Federal funding for this project is: in fiscal
year 1992, $315,000, fiscal year 1993, $330,000, fiscal year 1994,
$330,000, fiscal year 1995, $309,000, and fiscal year 1996, $251,000
and fiscal year 1997 $250,000. These funds were from Nebraska Corn,
Soybean, Wheat, Sorghum and Beef Boards, World Wildlife Fund, Nebraska
Bankers Association, United Soybean Board and National Corn Growers
Association.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This work is being conducted at the Industrial
Agricultural Products Center, University of Nebraska, East Campus,
Lincoln, Nebraska.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The objectives of the original projects have been
completed. Specific objectives have been identified in each renewal
request.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This project is evaluated annually based on an annual
progress report. The lead staff scientist has reviewed the project and
determined that the research is conducted in accord with the mission of
this agency.
north central biotechnical initiative
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the North Central Biotechnical Initiative grant.
Response. The North Central Biotechnical Initiative administered by
Purdue University conducts a regional competitive research grants
program for biotechnology research to enhance the economic value and
commercial use of plant-based agricultural products of the North
Central Region. The Initiative has funded biomolecular studies with
commercial potential in corn, soybean, rice, barley, and alfalfa, as
well as studies on significant plant pests such as corn borer, corn
rootworm, and fungal pathogens.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principle
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that the proposal links
public and private research in plant biotechnology for enhanced
commercialization of agricultural research that will contribute to
regional and national priorities. The principal researcher believes
this research to be of national, regional or local need.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this project is to enhance the
economic value and commercial use of plant-based agricultural products
of the North Central Region. In 1996, the project awarded 13 grants for
biomolecular studies with commercial potential in corn, soybean, rice,
barley, alfalfa, and plant pests.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1995 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1995-1996 was $2,000,000
per year and for fiscal year 1997, $1,940,000, for a cumulative
appropriation of $5,940,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. At this time Purdue University has not allocated any
direct non-federal funds for grants management. Purdue University staff
are providing management and oversight support for the program. Non-
federal support may accrue to individual research projects funded under
the grant.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The funds are administered at Purdue University and the
research is currently carried out at Purdue University, Iowa State
University, Michigan State University, North Dakota State University,
Ohio State University, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri,
and University of Wisconsin.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The researchers anticipate that work may be completed in
fiscal year 1999. Completion of initially awarded grants will be in the
summer of 1998 for two-year awards and later for programs extending
beyond two years.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The North Central Biotechnical Initiative was evaluated
by an agency peer review panel on January 7, 1997. The panel expressed
concerns about the project, primarily because of the brevity of the
proposal and the absence for a proposal from the grant application. The
agency requested additional information from the principal researcher,
and the grant has been forwarded for final processing.
The North Central Biotechnical Initiative was also featured in a
biotechnology special grant seminar hosted by the agency on December
16, 1996, at which the principal investigator presented progress and
highlights to an audience of agency scientists, administrators, and
awards management staff.
oil resources from desert plants, new mexico
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Oil Resources from Desert Plants, New Mexico.
Response. The Plant Genetic Engineering Laboratory has been
exploring the potential for the production of high value industrial
oils from agricultural products. The effort has been focused on
transferring the unique oil-producing capability of jojoba into oilseed
rape and soybean. With the development of technology to both isolate
the enzyme components of oil biosynthesis and successfully transform
the target plants, significant advances have been made with jojoba. In
addition, oil enzymes have been studied in soybean, castor, oilseed
rape, and meadowfoam.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes desert plant sources of
valuable oils for industrial applications are typically low yielding
and limited in climatic areas for farm production.
Genetic engineering offers an opportunity to move genetic
capability to high-yielding major crops. Many of the oils and their
derivative acids, waxes, and others can directly substitute for imports
of similar polymer materials, especially petroleum.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of the research is to transfer the unique oil-
producing capability of jojba and other native shrubs into higher
yielding crops such as oilseed rape and soybean. This is a form of
metabolic engineering and it requires the transfer of coordinate groups
of genes and enzymes into the host plant to catalyze the necessary
biochemical reactions. Progress has included characterization and
isolation of several lipid biosynthetic enzymes along with associated
genes, binding and molecular enhancers.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This research began in fiscal year 1989 with a $100,000
grant under the Supplemental and Alternative Corps program. Grants have
been awarded under the Special Research Grant program as follows:
fiscal year 1990, $148,000; fiscal year 1991-1993, $200,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $188,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $169,000 each year;
and fiscal year 1997, $175,000. A total of $1,549,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Non-federal funds are not provided for operational
portions of this research. However, New Mexico State University and the
Plant Genetic Engineering Laboratory provide $90,000 for in-kind
support per year including faculty salaries, graduate student stipends,
facilities, equipment maintenance, and administrative support services.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research is being conducted by the Plant Genetics
Engineering Laboratory at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New
Mexico.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. An estimate of the total time in Federal funds required
to complete all phases of the projects is 3-4 years.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The Oil Resources from Desert Plants, New Mexico project
was evaluated for scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on
January 7, 1997. The panel recommended approval of the project pending
receipt of supplemental information on administrative aspects of the
project.
organic waste utilization, new mexico
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Organic Waste Utilization, New Mexico grant.
Response. Composted dairy waste is utilized as a pretreatment to
land application. Composting dairy waste before land application may
alleviate many of the potential problems associated with dairy waste
use in agronomic production systems. Composting may also add value to
the dairy waste as a potential landscape or potting media substrate.
High temperatures maintained in the composting process may be
sufficient for killing enteric pathogens and weed seeds in dairy waste.
Noxious odors and water content may be reduced via composting.
Composted dairy waste may be easier to apply, produce better seed beds,
and not increase soil salinity as much as uncomposted dairy waste.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the research will
address the utilization of dairy waste combined with other high-carbon
waste from agricultural and industry, including potash and paper waste,
for composting. This approach to waste management will have high impact
for states where dairy and agriculture are important industry sectors.
This is especially true for New Mexico and the southwest United States,
where the dairy business is growing rapidly. This research will also
provide an additional pollution prevention tool for the industrial
sectors dealing with potash and paper waste.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the research is to determine the
feasibility of simultaneously composting of dairy waste from
agriculture and industry. The research will determine effects of
utilizing composted waste, as opposed to raw waste, as a soil amendment
on plant growth, irrigation requirements, and nutrient and heavy metal
uptake. Phase I, to determine the feasibility of simultaneous
composting dairy waste with available high carbon wastes from
agriculture and industry, has been completed. Phase II, to determine
the appropriate ratios of waste to carbon substrate for successful
composting, is 50% completed.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1996 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1996 was $150,000, and for
fiscal year 1997 is $100,000. A total of $350,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds for the duration of this grant from
the state appropriated is $50,000. There is another $30,000 in-kind
support from the industrial partners. Additionally, a sum of $15,000
from the New Mexico State Highway Department is also being leveraged by
this project.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This work will be carried out in New Mexico under
direction of the Waste-Management Education & Research Consortium in
collaboration with The Composting Council and industrial partners, such
as Enviro (Ohio), Plains Electric and McKinley Paper (New Mexico).
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives:
Response. Completion date will be January 1999. Objectives are
being met as the project continues.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This project has been evaluated based on the annual
progress report and research findings presented at the annual
Composting Council Conference. The lead staff scientist has reviewed
the project and determined that this research is conducted in
accordance with the mission of this agency.
pasture and forage research, utah
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pasture and Forage Research, Utah grant.
Response. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has been received, and is being reviewed by the agency.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The proposed research under this Special Research Grant
will address issues to forage production and utilization in Utah.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goals of this research and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goals of this project are to develop a
comprehensive guide for the management of irrigated pastures to assist
livestock producers, reduce cost, and increase net returns.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1997 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is $200,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. No funds have been expended on this project to date.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at the Utah Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Mr. Skeen. When was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The principal investigators anticipate the completion
date for these objectives to be in 2002.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The proposal for the initial year's funding is currently
under agency review.
peach tree short life in south carolina
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Peach Tree Short Life in South Carolina grant.
Response. Progress continued in 1996 with focus on the continued
evaluation of longevity and productivity of Guardian rootstocks on
peach tree short life sites in the southeast and replant sites
throughout North America. More fundamental work has involved the
biochemical characterization of the egg-kill factor produced by a
bacteria on nematode eggs. Other basic studies involved the cloning of
genes associated with production and expression of toxins from the
bacteria.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The problem of the disease on peach, nectarine, and plum
trees in the southeastern United States effects is very great. More
than 70 percent of peach acreage in the southeast is effected. Due to
the loss of chemical nematicides, this disease has increased to nearly
three times the levels experienced when nematicides were in use. In
South Carolina, an average of 100,000 trees died in the years between
1980 and 1986. Continued studies on improvement of rootstock and the
use of cultivar Guardian BY520-9 has potential to benefit the entire
peach industry including California, New Jersey and Michigan where
bacterial canker is a problem.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date.
Response. The goal of this research was the continued evaluation of
productivity of peach Guardian BY520-9 rootstocks on peach short life
and investigations into novel management for ring nematodes by
bacteria. Recent accomplishments include increased Guardian seed
production that reached 600,000 commercial seeds. The rootstock is
being tested in a 22 states and provinces and continues to perform
well. Bulk seed lots of Guardian was shown to be resistant to root-knot
nematodes. Fingerprinting using RAPD successfully separated root-knot
nematode resistant rootstocks from susceptible ones. The unique
insertion site in four Tn5 egg-kill factor minus mutants were
identified. The bacteria, Pseudomonas aureofaciens BG33R was shown not
to produce chitinase but other enzymes.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1981, $100,000; fiscal years 1982-1985, $192,000
per year; fiscal years 1986-1988, $183,000 per year; fiscal year 1989,
$192,000; fiscal year 1990, $190,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $192,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $180,000, and fiscal years 1995-1997,
$162,000 each year. A total of $3,041,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources for this grant were as
follows: 149,281 state appropriations in 1991; $153,276 state
appropriations in 1992; $149,918 state appropriations in 1993; $211,090
state appropriation in 1994; $193,976 in state appropriation in 1995,
$169,806 in state appropriation in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where was this work carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted at South Carolina
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The researchers anticipated that the work may be
completed in fiscal year 1998. Adequate progress has been made to
assure that the objectives will be met before the completion date.
Mr. Skeen. What was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The last agency evaluation was a merit review completed
January 5, 1997. In summary, the evaluation of peach rootstocks with
resistance to peach tree short life is of continued importance in
managing this disease. The use of biological control strategies in
suppression of plant parasitic nematodes are a complementary areas of
research in that it can enhance disease management by protecting the
peach rootstocks. Progress was made in all the objectives in 1996. Some
accomplishments were the increased production and release of commercial
Guardian seed and continued evaluation of the seed in 22 states and
provinces. A molecular technique that separates resistant from
susceptible peach rootstocks appeared successful in preliminary
studies. Other accomplishments were on the identification of the Tn5
egg kill factor.
pest control alternatives, south carolina
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pest Control Alternatives grant.
Response. This grant supports research and technology transfer to
provide growers with alternatives for managing pests and to implement
the use of new alternatives reducing the sole reliance on chemical
pesticides.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The investigators contributing to the research and
technology transfer at South Carolina believe that need for the
development of alternatives for managing pests on vegetables is a
regional and national problem. Research contributions are projected by
South Carolina to impact vegetable production in the Southern region
and consumers of vegetable production from the Southern region. In
addition, future efforts will be made to collaborate with Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) regional and state team representatives in
finding solutions to the specified problem area.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. the goal of this program is to investigate alternative
methods of managing insects, plant diseases, and nematodes in vegetable
crops as complements to or as substitutes for conventional chemical
sprays. Principal accomplishments appear to rest in a four-year
comparison of study plots of organically grown and conventionally grown
vegetables. Residual nutrient levels in subplots treated with organic
sources of fertilizer were greater than in subplots which received
inorganic source of fertilizer. After four years of summer cropping
followed by winter cover crop treatments, no herbicides nor pesticides
have been applied to the study area. Weekly scouting has determined
that harmful insect thresholds have not been reached. Naturally
occurring beneficial insects were sufficient for pest control. The role
of indigenous predators, parasites, and pathogens in controlling insect
pests are being evaluated. Technology transfer to conventional and IPM
systems has resulted in modified thresholds for caterpillar pests in
collards and tomatoes which incorporate the impact of beneficials in
the system and a sampling plan for tomato fruitworm which considers
numbers of parasitized eggs used to schedule insecticide sprays.
Numbers of insecticide sprays were reduced by 75-100 percent and the
weight of marketable fruits was the same in plots receiving weekly
sprays.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1992 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $125,000
per year. In fiscal year 1994 the appropriation was $118,000 and in
fiscal years 1995 through 1997, $106,000 per year. A total of $686,000
has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. South Carolina has provided $124,860 per year from State
appropriations.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. This research and technology transfer program is being
conducted at the South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
Clemson University at Clemson, Florence, and Charleston, South
Carolina.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original objectives of the project were for five
years. Funding last year completed the five-year duration, and
researchers indicated that the work would be completed by the end of
the last fiscal year. Research on objective A, Develop and evaluate
microbial pest control agents for control of plant pathogens and insect
pests of vegetables, is defuse and non-conclusive. It would be far
superior for continued work in this area to be submitted to competitive
peer review programs where the investigators would need to clearly
focus specific activities and receive the benefit of the comments of
peer scientists. Research on objective B, determine the efficacy of
innovative cultural practices for vegetable production systems in South
Carolina, and objective C, assess the role of indigenous predators,
parasites, and pathogens in controlling insect pests, determine
environmental and biological factors that influence the abundance and
distribution of these indigenous beneficials, and consider the presence
of natural enemies, as well as pests, in management decisions, is the
area where the most progress appears evident. The base of information
and orientation of the research in this area is adequate and of quality
that the investigators could compete well in competitive grant programs
such as sustainable agriculture or regional IPM grant programs, and
would benefit from the peer review process. Progress in this area is an
ongoing process as explanations are sought for the results being
obtained. Research on objectives D, evaluate and develop germplasm,
breeding lines and cultivars for resistance to major pathogens of
commercially important vegetables, and objective E, transfer new
technology to user groups, has not demonstrated any progress that would
not be anticipated from ongoing conventional sources of funds.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. We evaluate this project annually when we process the
grant. Last year we wrote to the South Carolina station indicating that
they should consider initiating a comprehensive review with CSREES
participation. CSREES plans to initiate this review before we process
the 1997 grant.
pesticide clearance
(pest management for minor crops)
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pesticide Clearance grant.
Response. The Pest Management for Minor Crops (IR-4) Program,
formerly the Pesticide Clearance Program, is a joint effort between the
State Agricultural Experiment Stations, CSREES, and the Agricultural
Research Service. IR-4 provides the national leadership, coordination
and focal point for obtaining tolerance and safety data for pesticides
and biological control agents for specialty crops such as horticultural
crops. The agricultural chemical industries have not economically-
justified the time and expense to conduct the necessary research for
pesticides with small market potential. With the Federal registration
resulting from this research, a large number of small acreage crops
such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, spices and other specialized crops
have been provided with needed crop protection against pests. Protocols
are written after careful review and inputs from representatives of
grower groups, industry and researchers. The researchers then carry out
field trials on priority needs to determine their effectiveness, safety
and usefulness and then analyze the field grown commodities, where
appropriate, to identify and quantify any residues that may persist.
All of this is done according to the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Good Laboratory Practices guidelines. The research program then
assimilates the data from all the participating experiment stations,
grower groups and chemical industry, and petitions are written for
tolerances and Federal registration or reregistration. The 1996 grants
terminate between March 1996 and March 1998.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The basic mission of IR-4 is to aid producers of minor
food crops and ornamentals in obtaining needed crop protection
products. IR-4 is the principal public effort supporting the
registration of pesticides and biological pest control agents for the
$31 billion minor crop industry. This is a national research effort
which identifies needs by a network of users and state university and
Federal researchers. This research is highly significant to national,
regional or local needs.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal is to obtain minor use and specialty use
pesticide registrations and assist in the maintenance of current
registrations. And to assist with the development and registration of
biopesticides and safer pesticide products useful in IPM systems for
minor corps. This research effort has been responsible for data in
support of 2,074 food use clearances, which include 1,127 since 1984,
3,602 ornamental registrations, and research on 26 biopesticides
resulting in 18 minor use registrations. The Pesticide Clearance
program continues to have a high productivity which, according to EPA,
results in 40% of all EPA pesticide registrations.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from appropriate funds as
follows: Program redirection in fiscal year 1975, $250,000; fiscal year
1979, $500,000; fiscal year 1977-1980, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal year
1981, $1,250,000; fiscal years 1982-1985, $1,400,000 per year; fiscal
years 1986-1989, $1,369,000 per year; fiscal year 1990, $1,975,000;
fiscal year 1991, $3,000,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $3,500,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994, $6,345,000; and fiscal year 1995 through 1997,
$5,711,000. A total of $52,529,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $891,856 state appropriations and $65,402 industry in
1991; $1,002,834 state appropriations and $104,292 industry in 1992;
$1,086,876 state appropriations and $310,133 industry in 1993; $550,160
state appropriations, $408,600 industry and $924,169 miscellaneous in
1994; $775,432 state appropriations, $266,714 industry and $751,375
miscellaneous in 1995; $800,000 state appropriations, $250,000 industry
and $800,000 miscellaneous in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Field work is performed at the State and Territorial
Experiment Stations. Laboratory analysis is conducted primarily at the
California, New York, Florida and Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Stations with assistance by the Oregon, Hawaii, North Dakota, Arkansas,
North Carolina, Washington, Virginia, Mississippi, Idaho, Pennsylvania
and New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Stations. Protocol development,
data assimilation, writing petitions, and registration processing are
coordinated through the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station ARS
is conducting minor use pesticide studies at locations in California,
Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and
Washington. ARS laboratories in Georgia, Maryland and Washington are
cooperating with analyses.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. Selected categories of the Special Research Grants
program address important national and regional research initiatives.
The pesticide clearance program, also referred to as pest management
for minor crops, involves research on biological systems that by their
nature are ever changing and presenting new challenges to agriculture.
The IR-4 workload is anticipated to be long term because of the
sensitivities about food safety and the environment, plus the
reregistration of older pesticides mandated by the 1988 amendments to
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act--FIFRA. IR-4
developed a strategy in 1989 to defend needed minor use pesticides that
were subject to reregistration but would not be supported by industry
for economic reasons. In addition, the Food Quality Protection Act
calls for more extensive residue data requirements which would take
into account an additional safety factor for infants and children. IR-4
will fulfill these commitments by December 1997, the conclusion of
reregistration process mandated by the FIFRA amendments. IR-4's updated
strategic plan focuses on the registration of biopesticides and safer
pest control technology for minor crops. This program thrust will be
carried out along with the traditional minor crop pesticide clearance
program.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Each year the program is peer reviewed and reviewed by
CSREES' senior scientific staff. A summary of those reviews indicate
excellent progress in the achieving the objectives. In addition to the
yearly evaluations, the program received an on-site external review
sponsored by CSREES in December 1990, and a GAO review, the results of
which were published in June 1992. The GAO report notes that ``. . .
limited funding by USDA . . . has restricted the number of research
projects that IR-4 has been able to support. . . . IR-4 uses the
existing land grant University infrastructure, establishes its research
agenda to include those pesticides most likely to be approved by EPA,
and annually reviews its research priorities.''
pesticide impact assessment program
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pesticide Impact Assessment grant?
Response. Research funded by the National Agricultural Pesticide
Impact Assessment Program--NAPIAP--discovers, gathers, publishes, and
distributes information relating to the use and effectiveness of pest
management alternatives essential to the maintenance of U.S.
agricultural crops and livestock production. These data involve
evaluating the biologic and economic impact and consequences of
restricting the use of key pesticides either through voluntary
cancellations or regulatory action. NAPIAP data augments National
Agricultural Statistic Service--NASS--data by conducting commodity
based assessments on minor-use or small acreage crops. To insure that
there is no duplication of effort, NAPIAP coordinates information
collection with NASS and concentrates its pest management inquiries on
commodities not surveyed by NASS.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. This program provides the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the USDA with information on the use and effectiveness of
pest management alternatives essential to the maintenance of U.S.
agricultural crops and livestock production. EPA uses this information
in making environmentally sound regulatory decisions which have minimal
risk to human health and the economic balance of U.S. agriculture. USDA
uses these data to identify commodity sites where there are critical
pest threats to production because no or few pest management
alternatives exist. This national research and information delivery
effort involves USDA coordinated cooperative interactions with
scientists in all State Agricultural Experiment Stations and
Cooperative Extension Services. The USDA and EPA receive state
generated agricultural information needed for sound regulatory
decision-making and the state partner receives federal funds,
participatory input into the regulatory process, and direct access to
timely regulatory information.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original and current goal of this research
and what has been accomplished to date?
Response. The National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program--NAPIAP--has been an on-going research effort whose original
goal in 1977 was to gather data to provide comprehensive assessments
documenting what would be the impact on agriculture if certain
pesticides would no longer be available. A federally coordinated
network of state scientist contacts was developed in the intervening
years as broader and more environmentally enlightened goals evolved
within this program. Today the NAPIAP's goals are defined in its
strategic plan as: first, in collaboration with USDA, EPA, and Land-
Grant partners, to focus activities on collecting and delivering high
quality, science based pest management information for use in the
regulatory process; and second, maintain and enhance a strong
partnership between the USDA and the Land Grant System in order to
continue the positive interactive flow of vital pest management
information between the USDA, the regulatory community, and production
agriculture.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: Fiscal years 1977-1981, $1,810,000 per year; fiscal years
1982-1985, $2,069,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1988, $1,968,000 per
year; fiscal year 1989, $2,218,000; fiscal year 1990, $2,437,000;
fiscal years 1991-1993, $2,968,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$1,474,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $1,327,000 per year. A total of
$42,244,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of the non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The majority of the cost of the state scientist and the
NAPIAP program is born by the state partner. The exact contribution of
each state is not known, nor has this information been requested to be
reported to the federal partner during the duration of this program.
The federal program funds provided to the states by the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service have been used by
state partners to partially defray their costs of staffing a Pesticide
Impact Assessment Program State Liaison Representative on their Land
Grant campus. The remainder of the salary costs, facility costs,
clerical support expenditures, supplies and program costs of the
program's State Liaison Representative have been born by each state and
these costs are considered the state funding provided to support this
program. State estimates of their contributions to this program have
ranged from 3 to 6 times the federal dollars that have been provided to
support their cooperative efforts.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This work is underway at State Agricultural Experiment
Station in 53 states and Territories. Competitively awarded research
funds which fill both national and regional information needs are
coordinated through a lead state in each of the four regions of the
United States: California--West; Ohio--North Central; Northeast--
Pennsylvania; and Florida--South.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional objectives?
Response. The National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program--NAPIAP--has been an on-going research effort whose original
goal in 1977 was to gather data to provide comprehensive assessments
documenting what would be the impact on agriculture if certain
pesticides would no longer be available. A federally coordinated
network of state scientist contacts was developed in the intervening
years as the information needs of the regulatory agency increased. This
is a multi-agency on-going program strongly supported by dollars and
personnel within CSREES, ARS, ERS, and the Forest Service which is
attempting to address the ever increasing data needs for information by
EPA in recent years. As the impacts of the Food Quality Protection Act
become more widely realized and IPM implementation requires
measurements to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act,
there will be an even greater need for pest management information
traditionally gathered, developed, and processed by the NAPIAP.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. A comprehensive evaluation and review of the national
component of the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program--NAPIAP--was conducted in February 1995. The review panel's
report was published in June 1995. The review team was composed of 10
scientists from EPA, Industry, and the Land Grant System. The recurring
theme that emerged from the 1995 review was a directive to focus the
NAPIAP program on data collection on the benefits of pest management
alternatives. To address this directive, CSREES brought together the
programmatic and budgetary components of CSRS and CES into a single
coordinated NAPIAP effort. This reorganized program is now supported by
parallel funding of PL 89-106 and Smith-Lever 3, d, dollars. In
addition to NAPIAP program allocation funds, there is a regionally
based competitive grants program designed to: first, quantify the usage
of different pest management alternatives; second, quantify yield and
quality data related to pest management alternatives, and third measure
other benefit parameters related to agricultural pest management. A
summary of the 14 published recommendations from the review panel and
how the federal program has addressed them is available.
phytophthora root rot, new mexico
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Phytophthora Root Rot, New Mexico grant.
Response. Work has continued to focus in general on development of
strategies for sustainable vegetable production in irrigated lands.
Work has continued on the search for Phytophthora root rot resistance
in chilies, identification of molecular markers for rot tolerance
genes, investigation on irrigation modification as a means to manage
root rot, and soil bed temperature control as a means to control
disease.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Because the Phytophthora disease threatens chili
production in west Texas, New Mexico, and Eastern Arizona, this problem
is of state- and regional-scale significance.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to improve chili production through
genetically superior cultivars, combined with new improved cultural
practices. Researchers have developed a highly effective disease screen
that selects resistant seedings, found that genes for resistance to
root rot do not provide protection against Phytophthora foliar blight,
that a wild species of Capsicum is immune to the fungus, and that
molecular markers are useful to introgress genes for tolerance. They
also found that alternate row irrigation and drip irrigation
significantly reduce Phytophthora root rot. Control of soil temperature
with soil mulches can greatly impede the progression of root rot in the
irrigated fields.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991 with an appropriation of $125,000 for fiscal year 1991. The fiscal
years 1992-1993 appropriation was $150,000 per year; $141,000 in fiscal
year 1994; and $127,000 in fiscal years 1995-1997, each year. A total
of $947,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds supporting this project amount to
$255,319, from state appropriations and the California Pepper
Commission.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at New Mexico State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the original
objectives was 1995. Those objectives have not been met. Related
programs deal with research and development efforts designed to prevent
or manage diseases impacting vegetable production in irrigated areas,
and cooperators estimate that the objective of these programs should be
met by 2002.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The last agency evaluation was made in December, 1996. In
summary, the evaluation stated that the overall goal of this project is
control of various soil-borne diseases of irrigated vegetable crops in
New Mexico, with applicability to other southwest U.S. production
areas. Specifically, the current effort focuses on Phytophthora root
rot of chilies.
postharvest rice straw, california
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Response. The postharvest rice straw special grant is new in 1997
and has two main objectives: (1) characterize current capabilities,
costs and constraints in harvesting and handling rice straw as a
renewable material for commercial products and (2) investigate
alternative harvest and handling systems and evaluate their specialized
equipment and system designs.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. California legislation mandates reduction in the amount
of open rice straw burning, the principal method of rice straw
disposal. Efficient harvest and handling may make rice straw a suitable
raw material for user businesses while meeting straw burning
regulations and improving air quality. The principal researcher
believes this research to be of regional and local need.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. This research was initiated in 1997. The goal is to
demonstrate efficient and economic rice straw harvest and handling,
thereby establishing rice straw as a feedstock for value-added
manufacturing and other uses.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1996?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1997 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is $100,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The University of California-Davis cites cooperation by
the California Rice Industry Association and the California Rice
Research Board. Cost-sharing support from non-federal funds is not
included. Cost-sharing may become available from industry later in the
project as prototype harvest and handling equipment and systems for
rice straw are developed and tested.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at the Department of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California-
Davis, California.
Mr. Skeen. What is the completion date for the original objectives
of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the anticipated
completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. It is anticipated by the University of California-Davis
that the postharvest rice straw project will be completed in 2002,
after a five year period to meet objectives.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Since this (1997) is the first year for the postharvest
rice straw project, no evaluation has been conducted.
potato cultivars, alaska
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Potato Cultivars, Alaska, research grant.
Response. This research will focus on the development of potato
cultivars that might be useful as disease resistant seed stock for the
contiguous U.S.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. This research will focus on the development of potato
cultivars that might be useful as disease resistant seed stock for the
contiguous U.S.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. This research will focus on the development of potato
cultivars that might be useful as disease resistant seed stock for the
contiguous U.S.; funding for this project was initiated in fiscal year
1997, so no accomplishments have been made under the grant to date.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1997. Funding is appropriated in fiscal year 1997 for $120,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. No information on non-federal funds have been reported to
CSREES yet.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research will be conducted in the state of Alaska.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives.
Response. It is anticipated that the completion date for the
original objectives will be within a 5-year period.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Because this is a new project in fiscal year 1997, the
agency has not had an opportunity to evaluate the project, but will
follow its procedures of reviewing the University's proposal and the
resulting progress reports.
potato research
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Potato Research grant.
Response. Scientists at several of the State Agricultural
Experiment Stations in the Northeast, Northwest, and North Central
States, are breeding new potato varieties, high yielding, disease and
insect resistant potato cultivars, adapted to the growing conditions in
their particular areas, both for the fresh market and processing.
Research is being conducted in such areas as protoplast regeneration,
somoclonal variations, storage, propagation, germplasm preservation,
and cultural practices.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes this research effort
addresses needs of the potato producers and processor. Research areas
being studied include storage and postharvest handling of potatoes and
their effect on potato quality. Potato producer and processor needs are
breeding and genetics, culture factors and pest control on potato
production.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to improve potato production
through genetics and cultural practices as well as improve storage for
quality potatoes for processing and fresh market. This research has
resulted in a number of new high yielding, good quality, disease and
insect resistant, russet type cultivars, which are now being used in
the processing industry and in the fresh market. Research by the
Pacific Northwest States of Washington, Oregon and Idaho has resulted
in the release of a number of cultivars, including Gemchip, Calwhite,
Century Russet, Ranger Russet, Frontier Russet and Chipeta. In
addition, North Dakota developed Norkatah as a result of this program.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1983, $200,000; fiscal year 1984, $400,000; fiscal
year 1985, $600,000; fiscal years 1986-1987, $761,000 per year; fiscal
year 1988, $997,000; fiscal year 1989, $1,177,000; fiscal year 1990,
$1,310,000; fiscal year 1991, $1,371,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$1,435,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $1,349,000; and fiscal years
1995 through 1997, $1,214,000. A total of $15,438,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $401,424 state appropriations, $4,897 product sales,
$249,830 industry, and $30,092 miscellaneous in 1991; $567,626 state
appropriations, $6,182 product sales, $334,478 industry, and $44,323
miscellaneous in 1992; $556,291 state appropriations, $9,341 product
sales, $409,541 industry and $44,859 miscellaneous in 1993; $696,079
state appropriations, $21,467 product sales, $321,214 industry, and
$226,363 miscellaneous in 1994; $935,702 state appropriations, $35,376
product sales, $494,891 industry, and $230,080 miscellaneous in 1995;
and an estimated $900,000 state appropriations, 410,000 product sales,
$400,000 industry, and $200,000 miscellaneous in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carrier out?
Response. The research work is being carried out at the Cornell,
Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
and Washington State Agricultural Experiment Stations.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The project was initiated to accomplish significant
results in about five years. Because the research is based on genetic
varietal development, progress in developing new potato varieties takes
from 5 to 10 years.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Each year the grant is peer reviewed and reviewed by
CSREES's senior scientific staff. A summary of that review indicated
progress in achieving the objectives. In addition, the agency has at
least one formal meeting with representatives from the potato industry
to review research needs.
preharvest food safety, kansas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Preharvest Food Safety grant.
Response. The project is to examine the incidence of shedding of e.
coli 0157:H7 in feces of beef cattle and the impact of various
management procedures such as calving, weaning, routine cattle handling
for vaccination, etc. on the frequency and amount of shedding of these
bacteria. The study will focus on the differences between small and
large cow-calf operations in Kansas.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The presence of E. coli in cattle destined for slaughter
and entry of meat products into the human food chain has given impetus
to the need for understanding the ecology of the organism and the
impact of management strategies, including herd size, on the prevalence
of the organism and likelihood of contamination of meat supplies.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to determine the
relative incidence of shedding of E. coli 0157:H7 from beef cattle in
small and large cow-calf operations and the impact of various
management events in the production cycle on this bacterial shedding.
The principal researcher expects this information will assist in
reducing the prevalence of this organism in beef cattle and, thus,
reduce the incidence of food-borne illness in humans due to this
bacterium. To date, the research team has established new highly
effective and rapid detection systems for identifying the E. coli
organisms in feces of cattle. The cooperating herds have been
identified and initial collections have been made. Collaborative
arrangements have also been established with scientists at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln for doing more intensive work with
animals that are identified as ``shedders''. At this time they have met
all of their goals on time and expect to continue to do so.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1996. The appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was $212,000. A
total of $424,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. During fiscal year 1996 non-federal funds provided to
this project were $150,000 in state appropriations and $91,450 in
contributed indirect costs. It is anticipated that a similar
contribution will be made by Kansas State University in fiscal year
1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted at Kansas State
University, of Nebraska-Lincoln and at ranches in Kansas, Nebraska and
Colorado.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date was October 1, 1998, for
the original objectives. At this time, the research team has completed
all objectives that were planned for Year 1 of the grant and are
working on the objectives for Year 2. It is anticipated that the other
original objectives will be completed on schedule and the project
should terminate in late 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The principal researcher has provided regular progress
reports which have confirmed that the objectives are being accomplished
in a timely manner.
preservation and processing research, oklahoma
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the preservation and processing grant.
Response. Research has focused on the effects of preharvest and
postharvest factors on the market quality of fresh and minimally
processed horticultural products, including factors affecting marigold
petal pigment content, minimal processing procedures for extending the
shelf life and reducing the oil content of pecans, and harvest quality
evaluations for watermelons, pecans and peaches. Researchers are
developing harvester prototypes for multiple harvest of marigold
flowers and drying and threshing systems for marigold petal drying and
separation. Work is ongoing to develop a fruit orienting mechanism to
be incorporated into an on-line grading system and to develop
integrated harvesting/postharvest handling systems for fresh market and
processing market horticultural products. Research is also ongoing to
develop methods to determine textural properties of pecans, determine
optimum operating parameters for supercritical carbon dioxide and other
alternative partial oil extraction, and develop and optimize modified
atmosphere packaging techniques for pecan shelf life extension. Fiscal
year 1997 funds will support research from July 1, 1997 through June
30, 1999.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that technological
improvements in fruit, nut and vegetable handling systems are
critically needed to supply domestic markets and to support continued
participation in international commerce and thus serves the national
need. Regionally, processing systems under development for commercial
adaption provide crucial solutions required for market expansion of
pecans, affecting product market potential and value throughout the
southern U.S. Locally, improvements in postharvest handling and
processing are necessary to support growth of the industry and ensure
competitive involvement in national and international commerce of
horticultural commodities uniquely suited for production in Oklahoma.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of the research has been to define the major
limitations for maintaining quality of harvested fruits, vegetables and
tree nuts and prescribe appropriate harvesting, handling and processing
protocols to extend shelf life and marketability of harvested
horticultural commodities, thus maintaining profitability of production
systems and assuring an economic market niche for Oklahoma producers
and food processors. A systems approach to develop complementary
cropping, harvesting, handling and processing operations has resulted
in development of improved handling systems for cucurbit and tree fruit
crops. Matching funding has supported development of nondestructive
processing systems for partial oil reduction of tree nuts, to extend
shelf life and lower the calorie content for the raw or processed
product, resulting in development of a business plan for a commercial
facility. Technologies and procedures previously developed for cucurbit
and tree fruit systems are now being applied to support development of
profitable okra, pepper, sage, basil, tree nut, sweetcorn, and marigold
cropping, handling and light processing systems, with a targeted
completion date of 1999. Research from this project provided the basis
for commercial high relative humidity storage of peaches.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997.
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $100,000; fiscal year 1986, $142,000; fiscal
year 1987, $242,000; fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $267,000 per year;
fiscal year 1990, $264,000; fiscal year 1991, $265,000; fiscal year
1992, $282,000; fiscal year 1993, $267,000; fiscal year 1994, $251,000;
and fiscal years 1995-97, $226,000; each year. A total of $3,025,000
has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Support from the State of Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma
Agricultural Experiment Station and through the Oklahoma Centers for
Advancement of Science and Technology, have been provided as follows:
fiscal year 1991, $126,900; fiscal year 1992, $209,783; fiscal year
1993, $219,243; fiscal year 1994, $308,421; fiscal year 1995, $229,489;
and fiscal year 1996, $336,570, for a total of $1,460,405 in state
funds. An additional $16,100,000 has been committed by the State of
Oklahoma for development of an Agricultural Products and Food
Processing Center to support, among other programs, the horticulture
processing initiatives, and to begin operation in the spring of 1997.
The Oklahoma State University Division of Agriculture Sciences and
Natural Resources has appropriated approximately $2 million dollars to
staff the facility.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. This work is being conducted at the Oklahoma State
Agricultural Experiment Station, in conjunction with ongoing production
research at the Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center
and the South Central Agricultural Research Laboratories.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. The principal investigator anticipated that the fiscal
year 1996 grant would support work through June 1998. It is expected
that ongoing research will be completed in 2001.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of
the proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual
basis. A review of the proposal was conducted on December 20, 1996.
Though research progress was satisfactory, development and commercial
adoption of new practices and equipment has been less certain. The
project was evaluated as part of a comprehensive CSREES program site
review in the fall of 1995, with a recommendation by the review team to
continue to value-added product development.
red river corridor, minnesota and north dakota
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Red River Corridor program.
Response. The purpose is to conduct a program of research to assess
emerging international trade opportunities for the Red River trade
region and develop the means to be able to compete for such
opportunities in order to stimulate economic development. Projects were
initiated to assess the Corridor's transportation infrastructure,
research and development capability, competitive position, export
opportunities in Europe and Latin America, and trade strategies.
Emphasis is placed on technology and information transfer to inform
users and potential users. The University of Minnesota has submitted a
grant proposal for fiscal year 1997 to CSREES, and the grant has been
awarded.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The researchers believe there is a regional need to find
new and alternative markets to replace traditional markets that have
little or no growth potential and to develop the capabilities to
compete successfully for these markets. International trade is expected
to support continued economic growth in this primarily rural,
agriculturally dependent region.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research, and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal is to identify and assess export market
opportunities and develop strategies and programs to improve the
region's competitiveness in international trade. The program has
completed studies on transportation services and costs, the region's
trade position on specialty crops and metal fabrication, agro-
industrial research and development capabilities, and export
opportunities through collaboration with Canada. Studies in progress
include trade strategies of selected European regions and their
implications for regional trade strategies, trade opportunities with
Mexico, bilateral technology transfer among businesses in the region,
assessment and implications of Latin American transportation systems on
trade, opportunities and linkages between rural Mexico and the Red
River region, and relationships between social structure and rural
development. This grant will be used to fund projects to expand the use
by rural businesses of state-of-the-art telecommunications technologies
to expand markets and up-grade worker skills.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1992. The appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $200,000 per
year, $188,000 in fiscal year 1994, and $169,000 in fiscal years 1995-
1997. A total of $1,095,000 has been appropriated
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $4,300 State appropriations and $2,269 miscellaneous
for a total of $6,569 in fiscal year 1992; $16,000 State
appropriations, $4,138 industry, and $16,688 miscellaneous for a total
of $36,826 in fiscal year 1993; and $1,600 State appropriations, $1,637
industry, and $29,501 miscellaneous for a total of $32,738 in fiscal
year 1994. The preliminary allocation of non-federal matching funds for
fiscal year 1995 is $2,000 State appropriations, $7,500 industry, and
$6,500 miscellaneous for a total of $16,000. Therefore, a total of
$91,133 non-federal funds has been provided through fiscal year 1995.
Data for fiscal year 1996 are not available at this time.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The research program is carried out by the University of
Minnesota, Crookston, in collaboration with North Dakota State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The researchers indicate that this phase of the program
may be completed in fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. A merit review was conducted of this project in 1996
which indicated that it has contributed to the strengthening of
communications to rural America regarding international trade
opportunities. A site visit is scheduled for 1997 to assess the
project.
regional barley gene mapping project
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project grant.
Response. The objectives of this project are to: construct a
publicly available medium resolution barley genome map; use the map to
identify and locate loci, especially quantitative trait loci
controlling economically important traits such as yield, maturity,
adaption, resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses, malting quality,
and feed value; provide the framework for efficient molecular market-
assisted selection strategies in barley varietal development; identify
chromosome regions for further, higher resolution mapping with the
objective of characterizing and utilizing genes of interest; and
establish a cooperative mapping project ranging from molecular genetics
to breeding that will be an organizational model for cereals and other
crop plants. The fiscal year 1995 grant proposal has been received and
is being processed.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes barley breeders
nationwide need information about the location of agriculturally
important genes controlling resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses,
yield, and quality factors in order to rapidly develop new, improved
cultivars and respond to disease and pest threats. This project
provides that information along with appropriate molecular markers to
track these traits through the breeding and selection process.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this project has been to develop a
restriction fragment length polymorphism map for barley and associated
important genetic traits as a map to provide closely linked molecular
markers for barley breeders. The project successfully mapped 300
molecular markers. Portions of the map are described as very dense and
contain key location points for enhanced utility. The project is now
using the map to locate quantitative traits loci of economic
importance. These include genetic determinations for yield, maturity,
rust resistance, plant height, seed dormancy, and components of malting
quality. Technical papers have been published to report research
results to the scientific community.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $153,000; fiscal year 1991; $262,000; fiscal
years 1992-1993, $412,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $387,000; and
fiscal years 1995-1997, $348,000 each year. A total of $2,670,000 has
been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $203,760 from industry in 1991; $212,750 from industry
in 1992; $115,000 from industry in 1993; and $89,000 from industry in
1994; and $35,000 from the State of Washington and $108,000 in other
nonfederal funding, for a total of $143,000 in 1995. An estimated total
of $163,000 of non-federal funds supported this project.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted in the following state
agricultural experiment stations; Oregon, Colorado, Washington,
Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Minnesota, New York, Virginia and
California.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original objective of the ``Regional Barley Gene
Mapping Project'' was to produce a genetic map of agronomically
important traits of the barley genome. The anticipated time to complete
this task was estimated at 10 years with completion in 1999. Many
important genes have been mapped, some of which are being used to
improve barley cultivars.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This project is made up of many competitively awarded sub
projects that are reviewed annually by a peer panel and selected for
relevance to the original objective and scientific merit of the
proposed research. This project has been judged as an exceptionally
productive project which serves as a model for multi institutional-
multi disciplinary competitively awarded research project.
regionalized implications of farm programs
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the program on regionalized implications of farm
programs grant.
Response. The purpose of this research is to estimate the impacts
of farm, trade, and fiscal policies and programs and assess their
alternatives on the economic viability of typical crop and livestock
production operations located in different regions of the United
States.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes there is a need for
research that provides an assessment and evaluation of the potential
impacts of Federal farm, trade, and fiscal policies on the economic
viability and competitiveness of farmers located in different regions
of the United States. Policy impacts vary regionally because of
differences in farm productivity, input costs, climate, farm
enterprises and size. The research results are widely used by farmers
and public policymakers concerned about minimizing policy and program
inequities between regions and farm sizes.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original, as well as current, goal was and continues
to be to provide the farm community, extension, and public officials
information about farm, trade, and fiscal policy implications by
developing regionalized models that reflect farming characteristics for
major production regions of the United States. The researchers have
developed a farm level policy analysis system encompassing major U.S.
farm production regions. This system interfaces with existing
agricultural sector models used for farm, macroeconomic, and trade
policy analysis. The universities have expanded the number and types of
representative farms to 80. Typical farm models also are being
developed for Mexico and Canada under a collaborative agreement for use
in analyzing impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Some 25 policy studies were completed this past year at the request
of policymakers and farm groups including analyses of the impacts of
various farm policy proposals on representative crop farms in the U.S.,
elimination of the rice program, conservation reserve program impacts
on farms in the Great Plains, and revised baseline projections for
representative farms. The representative farms were used extensively
for analysis of farm level impacts of the alternative farm program
proposals considered for the 1996 Farm Bill as well as implementation
alternatives after passage of the Bill.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1990 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1990 was $346,000. The
fiscal years 1991-1993 appropriations were $348,000 per year; $327,000
in fiscal year 1994; and $294,000 in each of the fiscal years 1995
through 1997. A total of $2,599,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $288,843 State appropriations and $46,773 industry for
a total of $335,616 in fiscal year 1991; $45,661 State appropriations
in fiscal year 1992; $33,979 State appropriations in fiscal year 1993;
$40,967 State appropriations in fiscal year 1994; $161,876 State
appropriations in fiscal year 1995; $187,717 State appropriations for
fiscal year 1996; and $137,100 for fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted by the Texas A&M University
and University of Missouri at Columbia.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The researchers believe this program is of a continuing
nature for the purpose of assessing the impacts of existing policies
and issues and proposed policy and program changes at the individual
firm level for feed grain, wheat, cotton, rice, oilseed and livestock
producers.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. No formal evaluation of this project has been carried
out.
rice modeling
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rice Modeling grant.
Response. The purpose of this research project is to develop a rice
industry model with domestic and international components to aid U.S.
farmers, millers, and policymakers in making production, investment,
marketing and public policy decisions.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
reasearch?
Response. Research is needed to assist both the U.S. rice industry
and national policymakers in assessing the impact of existing and
proposed changes in public policies for rice. This research enables
improved analysis of both international and domestic policy changes on
rice production, stocks, prices of substitute crops and consumption.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to develop
international, national and regional models to analyze the impact of
foreign and domestic policy changes, and forecast changes in
production, stocks, prices of substitute crops and consumption.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1996. The appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was $395,000 for
a total of $790,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. For the 1996 fiscal year, state appropriations are
estimated to be $178,000; and for 1997, approximately $150,000.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The research is being carried out at the University of
Arkansas-Fayetteville and the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The researchers anticipate that the domestic portion of
the rice model will be complete by September 30, 1997. The
international modeling research is a little over half completed and the
researchers estimate another 5 years is required.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. We have conducted no formal evaluation of this project.
However, each annual proposal is carefully reviewed for adherence to
stated objectives and annual progress is discussed with the principal
investigators.
rural development centers
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rural Development Centers Program grant.
Response. The overall objectives of the research agenda of the five
rural development centers are to: Improve economic competitiveness and
diversification in rural areas; support management and strategic
planning for economic development; create community capacity through
leadership; assist in family and community adjustments to stress and
change; and promote constructive use of the environment. The function
of the Centers is to increase the productivity of regional faculty both
in doing research on rural issues and in using that research to do
effective outreach with rural communities.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or one of the
principal investigators, what is the national, regional or local need
for this research?
Response. The number of research faculty who are addressing broader
rural issues is declining in many places. The multi-disciplinary,
multi-state work supported by the Centers becomes even more crucial in
a period of reduced research emphasis. Critical needs are being met by
Center support including public lands policy, changing rural migration
patterns, fiscal alternatives for local-governments, and forest
stewardship education. Specific needs for regional research are
reviewed annually by the Centers. The focus of proposals varies from
year-to-year depending on the shifting priorities of rural clients.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The Rural Development Center mission is to strengthen
rural families, communities, and businesses by facilitating
collaborative socio-economic research and extension through higher
education institutions in the various regions. Research programs are
undertaken after evaluating broader regional and national priorities.
Following are some accomplishments of selected research activities
conducted under the auspices of various centers.
A group of economists from Oregon, Washington, and Nevada used
recent developments in regional economic modeling to look at the
effects on rural and urban economies of reduced timber harvests in
Oregon and of limited grazing on public lands in northern Nevada.
Rural-Urban Interdependence and Natural Resource Policy, a publication
recently released by the Western Rural Development Center, reports
these studies in detail. This report reflects core-periphery input-
output modeling that has grown out of an earlier research project
supported by the Center.
Northeast Center staff have been working with faculty of the
University of Minnesota Extension Service and West Virginia University
Extension Service to alter and condense a business retention and
expansion notebook. Retaining and expanding existing businesses in
communities is an effective alternative approach to industrial
recruitment. The resulting publication will appeal to and be
appropriate for use by community leaders/volunteers interested in
helping businesses maintain or expand their services in their
community. The community development approach to solving business
problems is what makes these materials so appealing. The authors are in
their final stages of editing, and the materials should be available
for purchase by the spring of 1997.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1971, $75,000; fiscal year 1972, $225,000; fiscal
year 1973, $317,000; fiscal years 1974-1981, $300,000 per year; fiscal
years 1982-1985, $311,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1987, $363,000
per year; fiscal year 1988, $475,000; fiscal year 1989, $500,000;
fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $500,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $470,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $423,000 per
year. A total of $9,695,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Non-federal funds available to the four Regional Centers
for Rural Development were: fiscal year 1991, $1,117,000; fiscal year
1992, $790,000; fiscal year 1993, $900,000; fiscal year 1994, $776,591;
and fiscal year 1995, $710,050; for a total of $4,293,641 across the
five years for which there are complete data.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The regional rural development centers include the
following: Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development,
Pennsylvania State University; North Central Regional Center for Rural
Development at Iowa State University; Southern Rural Development Center
at Mississippi State University; and Western Rural Development Center
at Oregon State University. There is also a rural development project
at North Dakota State University which receives funding from the annual
Rural Development Centers appropriation. Most of the research sponsored
by the four regional centers is actually performed by resident faculty
at land-grant universities in the respective region through
subcontracts from that center's grant.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The regional rural development centers were established
to provide an ongoing ``value added'' component to link research and
extension and by doing so to increase rural development under the
special conditions in each region. The work of the Centers is being
carried out in all 50 states and in some territories. The Centers
compile a report of annual accomplishments and share those with the
states in the region. The list of needs is constantly evolving and is
being addressed through projects that are matched to the constantly
shifting local agenda. The current phase of the program will be
completed in 1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The Centers enlist the help of advisory committees that
help establish operating rules and provide professional, technical
counsel and peer evaluation of Center projects. Advisory committee
members are qualified to fulfill these roles because they are directly
involved in the scholarship of rural development and are knowledgeable
on changing issues in rural areas. Specific site evaluations have been
undertaken as follows:
Western Rural Development Center--November 1994.
North Central Center--July 1992.
Northeast Center--May 1993.
Southern Center--August 1995.
rural policies institute
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rural Policies Institute grant.
Response. The Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) is a
consortium of three universities designed to create a comprehensive
approach to rural policy analysis. The Institute conducts research and
facilitates public dialogue to increase public understanding of the
rural impacts of national, regional, state, and local policies on rural
areas of the United States.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. There is a need to be able to estimate the impacts of
changing programs and policies on rural people and places. Objective
public policy analysis can provide timely and accurate estimates of the
impacts of proposed policy changes to allow more reasoned policy
discussions and decisions.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the Rural Policy Research Institute
was to create a new model to provide timely, accurate, and unbiased
estimates of the impacts of policies and new policy initiatives on
rural people and places. The Institute has completed a number of
successful policy research projects and developed three analytic models
central to its mission. These projects focus on the rural implications
of health care, education, housing, rural development, tax and
telecommunications policy proposals. In addition, the Institute uses
expert panels to provide policy decision support to a number of policy
making groups at national and State levels.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by these grants began in fiscal year
1991 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1991 was $375,000. The
fiscal year 1992 appropriation was $525,000; for fiscal year 1993,
$692,000; for fiscal year 1994, $494,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997,
$644,000 each year. A total of $4,018,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Aggregated non-federal funds to support the Rural Policy
Research Institute across the three universities involved include
unrecovered indirect costs, salary support from university and other
non-federal sources, and various other grants, contracts, and
reimbursable agreements. They amounted to $316,458 for fiscal year
1991; $417,456 in fiscal year 1992; $605,302 in fiscal year 1993;
$537,834 in fiscal year 1994; and $584,516 in fiscal year 1995;
$576,782 in fiscal year 1996; and $186,859 in 1997. Total non-federal
funding to date is $3,225,207.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The Institute's member universities are: the University
of Missouri-Columbia; the University of Nebraska-Lincoln; and Iowa
State University, Ames.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. Current funding will sustain activity through January
1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. We have conducted no formal evaluation, however, annual
project proposals are carefully reviewed, as are policy analyses
produced by RUPRI.
seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing, mississippi
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing
grant.
Response. Research related to seafood safety, quality and by-
product utilization has been supported by this grant. Compounds that
are generally recognized as safe and naturally occurring viruses have
been tested for their potential to control pathogenic Vibrio vulnificus
that is associated with gastroenteritis and fatal septicemia following
consumption of raw oysters. The researchers have also evaluated a new
impedance technology to objectively and rapidly determine the freshness
of seafoods. Researchers are also testing steam pasteurization to
reduce catfish microflora and extend shelf life.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that needs reflected in
the project include providing consumers with affordable alternative
seafood products. Alternative sources of seafood protein are needed
because of a drastic decline in natural harvests due to
overexploitation. Other needs addressed in this project include
reducing pollution during seafood and aquaculture food processing by
converting byproducts into value-added food ingredients or materials. A
regional interest for the Gulf coast is the potential devastation of
the oyster industry if harvests are severely restricted during warm
months. The present project seeks to provide alternative processing
strategies to control foodborne disease agents in oysters. Locally,
catfish processors are a major employer of the severely economically
depressed Delta region of Mississippi. By further enhancing the value
of catfish products, this project seeks to improve the livelihood of
individuals both on the Gulf coast and in the aquaculture region of the
state.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goals of the research were to improve the
quality and safety of catfish and improve the utilization of catfish
byproducts and underutilized marine species. Due to successes of the
original project, subsequent efforts are focusing on additional uses of
seafood and aquaculture foods by improving processing strategies and
providing alternative products from waste materials. The project has
thus expanded to include crab, shrimp, oysters, freshwater prawns,
hybrid striped bass, and crawfish.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1990 when $368,000 was appropriated for this project. The
appropriations for fiscal years 1991-1993 were $361,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $339,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $305,000 each
year. A total of $2,705,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The State of Mississippi contributed $1,949 to this
project in fiscal year 1991; $41,286 in fiscal year 1992; $67,072 in
fiscal year 1993; $91,215 in fiscal year 1994; $147,911 in fiscal year
1995; and $61,848 in fiscal year 1996. Product sales contributed $7,044
in 1991, $13,481 in 1992, $13,704 in 1993, and $5,901 in 1994. Industry
grants contributed $14 in 1992 and $31,796 in 1993. Other non-federal
funds contributed $80 in fiscal year 1991, $838 in 1992, and $17,823 in
1993. The total non-federal funds contributed to this project from 1991
through 1996 was $501,962.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted by scientists in the
Departments of Food Science and Technology and Agricultural Economics
of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at
Mississippi State University and at the Coastal Research and Extension
Center, Seafood Processing Laboratory, in Pascagoula, Mississippi.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. The principal investigators anticipate that research on
the original objectives will be completed in 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of
the proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual
basis. Since the agency has not yet received the proposal in support of
the fiscal year 1997 proposal, the last review of the proposal was
conducted on March 18, 1996. At that time, the agency science
specialist believed that the projects addressed needs and interests of
the regional seafood and aquaculture industries.
small fruit research
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the small fruit program grant.
Response. Research carried out using funding for this Special
Research Grant has been to enhance the production and quality of small
fruits in the Pacific Northwest which includes Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington. Research has been focused on cold hardiness, breeding and
genetics, and pest management.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes Washington, Oregon, and
Idaho are important states for growing, processing, and marketing small
fruits such as strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, grapes and
cranberries. Research is needed to help solve the myriad of problems in
order to remain competitive and expand markets.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
to be accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this project was to improve the
production and quality of small fruits in the Pacific Northwest through
research on cold hardiness, breeding and genetics, and pest control.
Research progress to date for Oregon is the evaluation of new
strawberry germplasm from Chile and North America for resistance to
fruit rot, aphids, spider mites, and weevils; virus indexing of small
fruit germplasm; better color stability of processed strawberries;
increasing cranberry production through better weed control; and
improving wine quality. Work is continuing in Washington on fruit
physiology; cold hardiness of strawberries, grapes, and red
raspberries; pest management of cranberries; and breeding of pest
resistant strawberries. Idaho work continues on postharvest research
for better marketability and adapting small fruit crops to high
elevation growing conditions. Oregon and Washington are jointly
carrying out marketing studies to identify new market niches for berry
crops and wines.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1991 was $125,000. The
fiscal years 1992 and 1993 appropriation was $187,000 per year, fiscal
year 1994 was $235,000, and fiscal years 1995-1997 are $212,000 each
year. A total of $1,370,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The nonfederal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: 1991, $1,562,078 state appropriations, $40,933 product
sales, $62,993 industry, $357,266 other nonfederal; 1992, $1,465,969
state appropriations, $90,453 product sales, $119,164 industry,
$287,976 other nonfederal; 1993, $1,539,255 state appropriations,
$91,954 product sales, $161,141 industry, $416,712 other nonfederal;
1994, $368,375 state appropriations, $45,430 industry and $90,822 other
nonfederal; and $1,185,249 for fiscal year 1995.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research is being conducted at Oregon State
University, Washington State University and the University of Idaho.
Oregon State University is the lead university.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original objectives of the project are still valid
today. The main goal was to have a competitive industry to satisfy the
needs of those using blueberries. However, the researchers anticipate
that most of the objectives will be met within five or six years.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. These projects are evaluated on a yearly basis through a
peer review mechanism set up by the University of Maine and by staff
from the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.
Peer review ensures that good scientific practices and rationales are
used while university and national staff reviews ensures that
objectives are addressed and budgets are within the policies and
regulations.
southwest consortium for plant genetics and water resources
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water
Resources Program grant.
Response. New Mexico State University, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Texas Tech University, the University of Arizona and the
University of California at Riverside entered into a cooperative
interdisciplinary research agreement constituted as the Southwest
Consortium on Plant Genetics and Water Resources to facilitate research
relevant to arid and semi-arid land adaptation. The overall goal of the
Consortium is to bring together multidisciplinary scientific teams to
develop innovative advances in plant biotechnology and related areas to
bear on agriculture and water use in arid and semi-arid regions.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water
Resources is addressing the need for an integrated program that
identifies specific problems of southwest agriculture, coordinates
water and biotechnology research aimed at solving these problems, and
facilitates the transfer of this information for commercialization. The
specific research objectives of the Consortium include the development
of crops with resistance to: drought and temperature extremes, adverse
soil conditions, and pests and parasites. The Consortium is also
identifying technologies for improved water and nutrient delivery. This
research has national, regional and local applications.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goals of this Consortium remains to
facilitate research to provide solutions for arid and semi-arid crop
adaption. Five participating institutions have developed research plans
consistent with the Consortium's goals. Subgrants are awarded
competitively following peer review to support research that would
solve problems unique to southwest agriculture. Specific attention is
given to interdisciplinary agricultural research. The Consortium has
discovered a gene that makes plants more resistant to water stress.
They have identified a genetic marker for salt tolerance and have
compared a genetic system of wild plant species to domestic crops for
differences in drought response. One research team has cloned a gene
from alfalfa that controls an important biosynthetic pathway, another
is working out the complex metabolism of salt tolerance in resistant
plant types, and other teams have identified genes involved in pest
resistance, herbicide tolerance and nutritional enhancement of arid-
land forage.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much been
appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1986, $285,000; fiscal years 1987-1989, $385,000
per year; fiscal year 1990, $380,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $400,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $376,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997,
$338,000 each year. A total of $4,410,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The Consortium's host institution, New Mexico State
University, reports matching non-federal funds of $80,000 in state
appropriations in 1992; $100,000 in 1993; $100,000 in 1994; $100,000 in
1995; and $100,000 estimated in state appropriations for 1996. These
funds exist in the form of researchers' salaries, facilities, equipment
maintenance and administrative support.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted by a consortium of
institutions comprised of New Mexico State University, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Texas Tech University, University of Arizona, and
University of California at Riverside. New Mexico State University is
the lead institution.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The project was initiated in 1986 and accomplished
significant results in the first five years. Currently additional and
related objectives have evolved and anticipated completion date for
these is 2001. Many of the objectives of this research have been met.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Each year the grant is peer reviewed and reviewed by
CSREES's senior scientific staff. A summary of that review indicated
excellent progress in achieving the objectives.
soybean cyst nematode, missouri
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research being
funded under the Soybean Cyst Nematode, Missouri grant.
Response. The research being funded by this grant is crucial to the
development of effective management strategies to understanding host-
parasite relations of the pathosystem and each of its components. Two
new nematode resistant soybean lines have been or will be released in
1996. The need for breeding soybean lines to develop resistant
varieties with a broad spectrum of resistance continues. More
fundamental research involves the utilization of new molecular
technologies to identify genes responsible for resistance. Other
aspects of the works relate to field management strategies for these
nematodes including cultural and biological applications.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional or local need for the
research?
Response. The soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines is the
most serious pest of soybean in the United States. The problems
continue to increase in the Midwest where 12 states have yield
reductions in soybean because of this nematode. Due to the nematodes
ability to adapt to resistant varieties over time, new varieties are
continually needed.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was managing the
soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines through the development of
new resistant soybean varieties and the use of biological and cultural
management strategies. To date, a new soybean variety that has
resistance to Heterodera glycines race 3 and moderator resistance to
race 14 has been developed and will be released shortly. This variety
also has resistance to Phytophthora sojae. Further, approximately 1,000
lines resulting from resistant soybean lines were selected for progeny
row planting and 150 lines advanced to 1996 yield tests. Delsoy 5500, a
soybean variety in maturity group V, was released in 1996 to five state
experiment stations. A single dominant gene was determined to be a
condition of resistance by two PI lines of soybean for Heterodera
glycines, race 3 while there was a two gene difference between two PI
line for race 5. The cultural studies involving no-till and disk-till
varied in different locations while the effects of six cropping
sequences indicated that Heterodera glycines can develop in the winter
on certain host crops.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This is a renewal of grant that started in 1991. Grants
have been awarded from funds as follows: fiscal year 1980-1981,
$250,000 per year; fiscal year 1982, $240,000; fiscal years 1983-1985,
$300,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1989, $285,000 per year; fiscal
year 1990, $281,000; fiscal year 1991, $333,000; fiscal years 1992-
1993, $359,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $337,000; and fiscal years
1995-1997, $303,000 per year. A total of 5,358,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $105,012 state appropriations in 1991; $84,368 state
appropriations in 1992; $168,017 state appropriations in 1993; $118,725
state appropriations in 1994; $33,498 state appropriations in 1995; and
$33,723 state appropriation in 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted at the Missouri
Agriculture Experiment Station and the University of Missouri.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the major objectives
was 1996. Many of the objectives are being met but genetic interaction
of the soybean cyst nematode/soybean is extremely complex. The
anticipated completion date of the continuing research is 1998.
Mr. Skeen. What was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The last evaluation of this project was a merit review in
December, 1996. In summary, continued development of new management
strategies for the soybean cyst nematode is extremely important.
spatial technologies for agriculture, mississippi
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Spatial Technologies for Agriculture, Mississippi
grant.
Response. At the request of CSREES the University submitted a grant
proposal that is being reviewed. This project will evaluate the
Components of Advance Spatial Technology for Agriculture (ASTA), also
known as site-specific farming and precision farming, to improve the
level of crop management and thereby improve farm income while avoiding
adverse environmental impacts. Integration of ASTA Components included
computers, Global Positioning, Geographic Information System and Yield
Monitor will permit combining yield maps with agronomic data and
variable rate technology for application of seed, fertilizer, and
pesticides, as well as other management practices to specific sites at
precisely the right amounts for optimum production with minimum inputs.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The proposed research under this Special Research Grant
will focus on evaluation of site-specific technology evaluation and
utilization for the major agronomic crops in Mississippi. In addition,
the technology evaluation information would apply to many other crops
wherever site-specific or precision farming systems are used.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this project is to develop
production management strategies utilizing site-specific technologies
to enhance crop production efficiencies and environmental quality.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1997, and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is $350,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. No funds have been expended on this project at this time.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at the Mississippi
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Mr. Skeen. When was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The principal investigators anticipate the completion
date for these objectives to be in 2002.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The proposal for the initial year's funding is currently
under agency review.
steep iii--water quality in pacific northwest
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the STEEP III--Water Quality in the Pacific Northwest
grant.
Response. The STEEP III study was established in 1996 as the third
phase of the tri-state STEEP Program entitled ``Solutions to
Environmental and Economic Problems,'' to meet the needs of farmers and
ranchers in the Pacific Northwest in solving severe problems with soil
erosion and water quality, while maintaining economically and
environmentally sustainable agricultural production.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the Pacific Northwest
wheat region is subject to severe wind and water erosion, which has
taken a heavy toll of the topsoil in a little more than 100 years of
farming. Due to the hilly terrain, water erosion has reduced potential
soil productivity in the high rainfall areas of the region by about
50%. Wind erosion has reduced productivity on the sandy soils in the
lower rainfall areas. Also, off-site environmental costs of water
erosion are large. Although many of these are difficult to measure,
they include damage from sediment to recreational areas, roadways, and
other areas which costs taxpayers millions of dollars annually. Wind
erosion, which occurs mostly in the spring and fall, also can be costly
and environmentally damaging, and causes increasing concerns for human
health and safety from blowing dusts. Water quality degradation is of
increasing concern in the agricultural areas of this region, since
sediment is a major pollutant of surface water runoff which may contain
varying amounts of chemicals. The complex hydrology of the region's
landscape has made it difficult to identify the sources of these
chemicals in surface and ground waters.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The primary goals are: to obtain and integrate new
technical/scientific information on soils, crop plants, pests, energy,
and farm profitability into sustainable, management systems; to develop
tools for assessing the impacts of farming practices on soil erosion
and water quality; and to disseminate conservation technology to the
farm.
The original STEEP and STEEP II projects for erosion control, and
the successor STEEP III program for erosion and water quality control,
have provided growers a steady flow of information and technologies
that have helped them meet economic, environmental, and resource
conservation goals. Through the adoption of these technologies, the
researchers believe wheat growers have been able to reduce soil
erosion, improve water quality, and maintain or increase farm
profitability. This has been accomplished through a tri-state, multi-
disciplinary approach of basic and applied research and through
technology transfer and on-farm testing to assist growers with applying
these research findings on their farms. The on-farm testing program has
been especially successful because growers are involved directly in the
research and education effort. For example, the on-farm testing program
has evaluated conservation options that growers can use to meet Farm
Bill conservation compliance requirements.
STEEP programs have helped position farmers with new conservation
technologies well in advance of deadlines to meet current and
anticipated policy requirements. This preparation protects farmers
against potential penalties and loss of government program benefits.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991, and the appropriations for fiscal years 1991-1993 were $980,000
per year; in fiscal year 1994, $921,000; in fiscal year 1995, $829,000;
and in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $500,000 per year. A total of
$5,690,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $938,812 state appropriations, $63,954 product sales,
$156,656 industry, and $16,994 miscellaneous in 1991; $1,025,534 state
appropriations, $75,795 product sales, $124,919 industry, and $88,696
miscellaneous in 1992; $962,921 state appropriations, $62,776 product
sales, $177,109 industry and $11,028 miscellaneous in 1993; $1,069,396
state appropriations, $46,582 product sales, $169,628 industry, and
$22,697 miscellaneous in 1994; and $1,013,562 state appropriations,
$31,314 industry, and $107,151 miscellaneous in 1995. In 1996,
Washington received $231,724 state appropriations; Oregon passed
Measure 5 which reduced revenues and imposed funding restrictions so
they were unable to provide any non-Federal cost-sharing or matching
funds; and Idaho contributed $81,525 state support, and $86,242 in
estimated non-Federal grant support, for a total non-Federal
contribution of $167,767.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work under STEEP III will be done at laboratories and
field research sites at the University of Idaho, Oregon State
University, and Washington State University. Cooperative on-farm
testing will be conducted in cooperation with growers on their fields
in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The STEEP II project was completed in 1995. The results
are compiled and are available as of January 1997 in a final, 5-year
report. The STEEP III project started in 1996 and will continue through
the year 2000 as a 5-year project.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service program manager annually reviews progress reports and proposes
new research on the STEEP Program, and attends the annual meetings to
assess progress. However, the program is evaluated each year by three
committees: grower, technical, and administrative. Annual progress is
reported at an annual meeting and compiled into written reports. These
reports and the meeting are reviewed annually. Grower and industry
input is solicited at the annual meeting on research objectives and
accomplishments.
sustainable agriculture and natural resources, pennsylvania
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources,
Pennsylvania, project.
Response. This project studies the cycling of nutrients from animal
agricultural production systems through soil and water into crops and
back to food for animals or directly to humans in the case of vegetable
production.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what it is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. Environmental degradation is a major concern of
agricultural production near urban areas, especially with regard to
pest management and pesticide use, nutrient loading of soils and water
associated with chemical fertilizers and animal and poultry manures.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to understand the
cycling of nutrients from animal agricultural production systems
through soil and water into crops and back to food for animals or
directly to humans in the case of vegetable production. Conventional
science in the late 1980's and early 1990's held that if only all
animal wastes were composted, the nutrient management problems would
disappear. However, the results of this research to date show that this
is a more complex problem. If farmers are to manage their farm lands
properly, indicators of soil quality and health must be developed that
can be used by agricultural producers and consultants. Efforts under
this project have been devoted to this goal.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported under this grant began in fiscal year
1993. The appropriation for fiscal year 1993 was $100,000, and $94,000
was appropriated in each of the fiscal years 1994 through 1997 for a
total of $476,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. A total of $195,901 in matching support from university,
state and private industry sources was provided in fiscal year 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is to be conducted by the Pennsylvania State
University with cooperators throughout the state.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the overall original
project objectives in 1998. It is anticipated that the original
objectives will be met at the end of 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
Response. There has not been a formal evaluation of this project,
but progress reports have been submitted to the agency and reviewed by
our scientific staff.
sustainable agriculture, michigan
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture, Michigan program grant.
Response. This project is intended to develop agricultural
production systems that are highly productive and profitable as well as
being environmentally sustainable. More specifically, this project will
examine how to achieve a high nutrient flow from soil to crops and
animals, and back to soil, with low loss to ground and surface waters.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Response. The principal researcher believes there is a need to
better understand the biological processes occurring in Michigan's
high-nutrient-flow crop and animal systems. With high water tables,
networks of lakes and slow-moving streams, and concern about
environmental standards, field contamination by agricultural production
materials is a high priority.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The specific goals of this research are to develop an
agroecological framework for decision-making, develop crop and cover
crop rotations, develop water table management strategies, and develop
rotational grazing systems. Accomplishments to date include an
extension publication on agroecology, development of on-farm compost
demonstration sites, collection of research data and computer software
models on water table management, and completion of initial research
trials on rotational grazing at three sites in Michigan.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997.
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1994 with an appropriation of $494,000; $445,000 were appropriated in
fiscal years 1995 through 1997, bringing total appropriations to
$1,829,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Matching funds were provided at the state level for
$511,900 in FY 1994, $372,319 in FY 1995, and $359,679 in FY 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This work is being carried out in Michigan at several
locations by Michigan State University. Locations include the Kellogg
Biological Station and the Upper Peninsula Experiment Station.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. This project is currently scheduled to go through March
31, 2000.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
Response. Findings from this project have demonstrated that
rotational grazing reduces production costs, and increases net profits,
compared to traditional cow management. This project has also shown
that composting is an effective way of stabilizing livestock waste,
controlling odor, and improving nutrient composition for later land
application. The computer modeling done with this project has shown
reduced contamination of groundwater through alternative management
practices employed in the project.
sustainable agriculture systems, nebraska
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the integrated crop and livestock research program
for Nebraska.
Response. This project is aimed at integration of field crops,
animal production, agroforestry, livestock waste management, and
diversified enterprises to meet production, economic, and environmental
quality goals.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Response. Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska and throughout the
Midwest face increasing difficulties in maintaining profitable
operations that are sustainable under increased production costs and
more stringent environmental regulations. They continue to seek
alternative production systems, integration of crop and animal
enterprises, value-added products, including those from woody
perennials, and new marketing approaches to secure more of the food
dollar. Work on crop residue utilization is highly important to assess
the loss of erosion mitigation when grazing occurs as well as the
benefits of winter forage to production of lean beef. Erosion is still
a major problem with monoculture cropping, and work with contour
strips, residue management, and animal grazing is essential to provide
good recommendations to farmers for how to manage fragile lands.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. This project has involved several components, with a
number of results to date. In improving erosion control through
grazing, calves were fed cornstalks from October through March, and fed
some supplements. The calves had lower costs of production, and reduced
need for grain feed. The researcher's work on integrative cropping and
agroforestry has shown that diversifying rotations centered around
soybeans has provided increased economic returns. In the objective
dealing with compost utilization, compost has provided increased
sources of nitrogen and improved soil quality. Reports from this
project have been disseminated through extension and through a
sustainable agriculture newsletter.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through FY 1997.
Response. This project began in fiscal year 1992, with an
appropriation of $70,000; subsequent appropriations are as follows:
$70,000 in fiscal year 1993; $66,000 in fiscal year 1994; and $59,000
in fiscal years 1995 through 1997. Total appropriations to date are
$383,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Matching funds provided for this research include state
funds in the amount of $25,313 for FY 1992, $26,384 for FY 1993,
$27,306 for FY 1994, and $36,091 in FY 1995.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted by the University of Nebraska
at several locations in Nebraska, with the major part of the project at
the Agricultural Research and Development Center near Mead, Nebraska.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The current project proposes work through March 31, 1998.
It is expected that current objectives of the project will be met by
this time period.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
Response. Findings from this project have shown that young cattle
can be fed with lower costs if cornstalks are used as part of their
ration. This system also allowed for a cropping pattern that reduced
erosion. The corn, soybean, and agroforestry system showed the highest
net income of the systems tested.
sustainable pest management for dryland wheat, montana
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Pest Management for Dryland Wheat
grant.
Response. This research will address pest issues of the dryland
wheat areas of eastern Montana.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The proposed research is specifically designed to address
pest issues of the dryland wheat area of eastern Montana.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to provide pest
management information to dryland wheat producers of eastern Montana
where crop loss can approach $100 million per year.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1996?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1997 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $200,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. No funds have been expended to date.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research will be conducted at Montana State University
Experiment Station.
Mr. Skeen. When was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The project is proposed for duration of 3 years and
therefore should be completed after fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The expected completion date of the project is FY 1999.
Assessment of the precision of biological control organisms and
estimates of profitability, marketability, and risk will be used to
assess progress.
swine waste management, north carolina
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Swine Waste Management, North Carolina, grant.
Response. CSREES has received the grant proposal from North
Carolina State University and is being processed at this time. The
objectives of this project are: (1) To develop a prototype system for
treatment of animal waste which will be used to study and optimize a
new and innovative swine waste management treatment process; (2) to
provide funds for additional technical staff to perform the work under
this project; (3) to purchase additional analytical equipment; and (4)
to provide funding for operation of the prototype facility. The
prototype facility will consist of a set of eight tanks which will be
connected by piping or hoses to enable researchers to test a variety of
different strategies for treatment of animal waste, including anaerobic
or aerobic digestion, removal of nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus, and alterations in the sequence of these various
operations.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher has stated that North Carolina
now ranks second in the United States in both pork and poultry
production. The problem of waste management has become critical because
adequate land for application of waste in not available in some areas,
water quality problems have been noted in both surface and ground
waters, nutrients from several lagoon failures have created serious
pollution problems in rivers and coastal areas, and communities have
become less tolerant of odor problems.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to enhance the
design, development, and implementation of alternative swine waste
management strategies and treatment systems. The project is awaiting
the initial award of funds so no progress can be reported at this time.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1997 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is $215,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The exact amount of non-federal funds to be contributed
to this project in fiscal year 1997 is not known. However, faculty time
from three individuals will be contributed to this project so it is
anticipated that the non-federal contribution will be substantial.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research will be conducted at North Carolina State
University in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date is October 1, 1997. The
project is just getting started so there is no interim progress to
report at this time.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An evaluation of this project has not undertaken since
fiscal year 1997 was the first year funds were appropriated for this
grant.
tillage, silviculture and waste management, louisiana
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Tillage, Silviculture, and Waste Management
Research Grant?
Response. This research has five components: Rice and Cotton
Tillage, Dairy and Poultry Waste Management, and Bald Cypress
Silviculture. More specifically, the Rice scientists are looking for
ways to improve stand establishment; the Cotton scientists are focusing
on the use of tillage systems to combat harmful insect populations; the
Waste Management Scientists are quantifying the environmental and
economic effectiveness of approved dairy and poultry waste disposal
systems; and the Silviculturists are conducting a problem analysis of
Louisiana's Bald Cypress forest.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. Since the crops, forest, and waste issues extend beyond
the borders of Louisiana, this research may have application outside
the state.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research, and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goals were to: improve conservation tillage
in rice and cotton production, to determine the effectiveness of no-
discharge dairy waste treatment facilities, to determine permissible
poultry litter land-treatment rates, and to evaluate wetland forest
regeneration problems. All components of the project have established
research studies and are monitoring progress. Each year the principal
investigator initiates a review of the sub-projects and, in this
fashion, is encouraging good dialogue and cooperation among the sub-
project investigators and their respective departments. For instance,
Louisiana State University's Poultry and Forestry Scientists are
working closely to establish application rates and procedures for
applying poultry waste to forest plantations.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this project been underway, and how much
has been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work began in fiscal year 1994. The appropriation for
fiscal year 1994 was $235,000, fiscal year 1995--$212,000, and fiscal
year 1996--$212,000. This totals $659,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. State funding in support of these areas of research
exceeds $750,000 annually.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Investigations are being conducted on the main campus at
Louisiana State University as well as the Experiment Stations at
Calhoun and Washington Parish, LA.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
projects?
Response. The original work was scheduled for completion in 1999.
Early term objectives have been met even though they suffered the loss
of a promising graduate student.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The last field evaluation was completed on December 12,
1995. The evaluation summary complimented the scientist on the
interdisciplinary components associated with this project, along with
their investigative procedures, report writing, and external
networking.
tropical and subtropical research
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the tropical and subtropical research program grant.
Response. The Tropical and Subtropical Research (T-STAR) Program is
operating in coordination with the Caribbean Basin Administrative Group
and the Pacific Basin Administrative Group. State Agricultural
Experiment Stations that are members of the Caribbean group are
Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; members of the Pacific
group are Hawaii and Guam.
Non-member institutional interests are represented by the Executive
Director of the Southern Region Agricultural Experiment Station
Directors, who is a member of the Caribbean group, and the Executive
Director of the Western Region Agricultural Experiment Station
Directors, who is a member of the Pacific group. The Agricultural
Research Service also has representation on the two groups, as does the
CSREES scientist who manages the T-STAR grant program.
Funds for the program are divided equally between the two Basin
Administrative Groups. The research objective of the program developed
by the principal researchers is to improve the agricultural
productivity of many of the subtropical and tropical parts of the
United States. Special research grants have been awarded for research
on controlling insect, disease and weed pests of crops; increasing the
production and quality of tropical fruits, vegetables and agronomic
crops; promoting increased beef production through development of
superior pastures; detection of heartwater disease of cattle and the
influence of heat stress on dairy cattle reproduction; better use of
land and water resources; developing computer models for efficient crop
production systems and animal feeding systems: developing computer
models for land-use decisions; using biotechnology methodologies for
improving plant resistance to viral and bacterial diseases; using
biotechnology to develop non-chemical, or biological, strategies for
controlling insect pests; and potential for growing new speciality
crops. Fiscal year 1997 proposals have been requested.
Mr. Skeen According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researchers believe there is a need for the
T-STAR program to provide research-generated knowledge that enables
informed choices in the responsible use of natural resources,
facilitates the health and well being of American citizens through
improved food safety and nutrition, provides frontline protection for
the rest of the nation's farms and ranches from serious plant and
animal diseases and pests, and enhances the ability of U.S. farmers to
produce crops efficiently and economically and/or to introduce new
crops and agricultural products with export potential to gain market
share abroad. On a regional basis, the T-STAR program addresses the
unique challenges of practicing tropical agriculture, that is presence
of pests year-around, heat stress, post-harvest processing to meet
regulatory requirements for export, etc. The local need of Americans
living in tropical regions of the nation for T-STAR knowledge-based
products to design and implement sustainable agricultural development
within fragile tropical agroecosystems--particularly on tropical
islands--and to develop new crops and niche markets.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to increase the
production and quality of tropical crops; control pests and diseases of
plants and animals; promote increased beef production and conserve land
and water resources. In fiscal year 1996, grants were supported for
research on control strategies for Melon thrips; the biochemical nature
of resistance to rust in nutsedge; development of bioherbicides for
nutsedges; development of tomato cultivars with resistance to the
spotted wilt virus; development of pheromones for monitoring and
controlling the citrus root weevil; reducing the effects of heat stress
in dairy cattle; development of a decision support system for vegetable
production; finding cucurbits with resistance to silverleaf, developing
a computer program for optimal supplementation strategies for beef and
dairy cattle on tropical pastures; characterizing new strains of citrus
tristeza virus in the Caribbean basin; determining the economic
threshold for the citrus leaf miner on limes; using viral replicase
genes to engineer rapid detection methods for geminiviruses; developing
makers of bacterial spot resistance genes in tomato; breeding snap and
kidney beans for resistance to golden mosaic virus and for heat
tolerance; searching for resistance to papaya bunchy top disease;
developing weed controls for yam production; and bioengineering
ringspot virus resistance in papaya.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The operation of the tropical and subtropical research
program was transferred from ARS to CSREES, with CSREES funding being
first provided in fiscal year 1983. Funds in the amount of $2,980,000
per year were appropriated in fiscal year 1983 and 1984. In fiscal year
1985, $3,250,000 was appropriated. In fiscal years 1986, 1987, and
1988, $3,091,000 was appropriated each year. $3,341,000 was
appropriated in fiscal year 1989. The fiscal year 1990 appropriation
was $3,299,000. The fiscal years 1991-1993 appropriations are
$3,320,000 per year; $3,121,000 in fiscal year 1994; $2,809,000 in
fiscal years 1995-1996; and $2,724,000 in fiscal year 1997. A total of
$46,546,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. For fiscal year 1996, more than $1 million of nonfederal
funds were provided to the T-STAR program from state appropriations.
These state funds were in the form of faculty salary time commitments
and indirect costs covered by the institutions.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted in Florida, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and Guam. Work is also being done in other
Pacific and Caribbean countries through agreements between institutions
but not using federal funds.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project. Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated date of additional related objectives?
Response. Research on tropical crop and animal agriculture to
increase productivity, net profits, decrease harmful environmental
impacts, conserve water, and natural resources. The need to continue
with this project has been expressed by producers in the area,
importers in the U.S. mainland and the institutions involved.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The projects that are funded by the T-STAR Special
Research Grant have been peer reviewed by panels of scientists in the
U.S. to assure that good science is undertaken. Also as part of the
grant renewal process, progress reports are reviewed by the two
Administrative Groups and by the grant manager at the national level.
Workshops in which research results and their application for
agricultural production are developed every two years. Research papers
are published in the appropriate regional, national, and international
forums available.
The development in 1995 of the Strategic Plan for T-STAR provided a
mechanism to define priorities, examine program direction, and
recommend operational changes. One of the principal points considered
was to bring the Caribbean and Pacific Basin components closer and
better coordinated. T-STAR and the coordination which it implies was an
outcome that will make this program better.
urban pests, georgia
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the urban pests program grant.
Response. This research is focused on urban pests with specific
emphasis on termites and ants.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes subterranean termites
and ants are significant economic pests in the southeastern United
States. Damage and control costs for termites in Georgia were estimated
at $44.5 million in 1993. It is estimated that Professional Pest
Control Operators apply over 23 million pounds of active ingredient in
and around homes each year. Chemicals currently registered for
controlling these pests are less efficacious than desired and applied
at an intensity that exceeds most agricultural settings.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of the termite research is to better understand
the foraging activities of subterranean termites and their responses to
selected environmental cues in order to tailor monitoring and
predictive strategies with efficacious conventional and alternative
methods of control. Specific accomplishments in the subterranean
termites research in 1996 are as follows:
A third year of data on termite foraging behavior was collected and
completed in 1996. Three years of data indicates Subterranean termite
colonies in Georgia are <500,000 termites per colony and are
characteristically smaller than those in Florida and Canada, but are
within the same size range of those in Mississippi. It is believed that
colonies of subterranean termites are nonindigeneous to Florida and
Canada and are not subject to the same competitive interactions as
those colonies that are native to Georgia and Mississippi. However,
structures attacked by subterranean termites in Georgia are often
attacked by more than one distinct colony. Three manuscripts have been
published and one is in press in this area of research.
Studies with termite baits in 1995 have demonstrated the
seasonality of termite feeding activity and behavior impacts the timing
of application and the timeframe for expected results from termite
baiting. Research in 1996 demonstrate that the active ingredient used
in termite baits must display a lack of dose-mortality effects for at
least two weeks to insure consistent, significant, and long-term
suppression of termite activity. Three manuscripts have been published.
Mitochondrial DNA preliminary work indicated that human transport
of termite-infested materials is the primary mode of termite dispersion
and could result in a higher frequency of hybrid formation within the
genus Reticulitermes. One manuscript has been accepted for publication.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The research supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1991, and the appropriation for fiscal years 1991-1993 was $76,000 per
year. In fiscal year 1994 the appropriation was $71,000 and in fiscal
years 1995-1997 the appropriation was $64,000 each year. A total of
$491,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
by fiscal year were as follows: 1991-none, 1992-$26,000, 1993-$18,000,
1994-$59,530 and 1995-$59,539.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. This research and technology transfer is being conducted
at the Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station in Griffin, Georgia.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The grants have been processed on a year to year basis
pending the availability of funds, however, the original objectives
were essentially a five- to eight-year plan of work. CSREES
entomologists judge that excellent progress has been made on foraging
behavior and the identification and development of termite baits. The
publication of the research results has also been excellent.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This project has been evaluated on an annual basis by
CSREES, and the progress has been excellent. Last year we documented
the progress on foraging behavior, genetic isolation of termite
colonies, new chemistry soil termiticides, the killing potential and
repellency of several strains of the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae,
termite baits and feeding activity and behavior that impacts the time
frame for expected results from termite baiting. A peripheral objective
on Argentine ants was completed last year with the development of
commercial baiting stations used on the outside periphery of buildings.
This method was proven effective in preventing infestations in
apartment complexes and reducing ant complaints by residents.
viticulture consortium, new york and california
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Response. The University of California and Cornell University in
New York received funding research in the spring of 1996 on varietal
responses of grapes, modeling of water requirements, management of
diseases including phyloxera and other cultural aspects of grape
production. These fiscal year 1996 funds will be used by the lead
institutions to fund projects in the various grape producing states
within their region.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The research being carried out is designed to help the
viticulture and wine industries remain competitive in the United States
and in the global market. Both these industries have a positive effect
on the United States balance of payments.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research is to maintain or
enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. viticulture industry in the
global market.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1996, $500,000; fiscal year 1997, $500,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds used in conjunction with this grant
have not been accounted for because these projects are in their first
year and have not yet been evaluated. However, monitoring of non-
federal funds used to further the projects will be carried out.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted in various states which
include California, Washington, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The research priorities set by the guidance group were
not all addressed nor will they be in the near future.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Since this is a new project, an evaluation has yet to
occur.
water conservation, kansas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the water conservation program grant.
Response. This research program is designed to develop and
disseminate technical and economic information on the efficient use of
water for irrigated crop production in western Kansas. The following
objectives comprise this program for the fifth year of the project: (1)
develop regression models to estimate the longevity of subsurface drip
irrigation systems using calculations of annual system performance
deterioration based on 11 years of operating pressures and flow rates;
(2) develop efficient advanced irrigation management procedures for
subsurface drip irrigation systems for corn; (3) identify and evaluate
the technically and economically feasible modifications to irrigation
systems for irrigation of corn, wheat and grain sorghum as affected by
well capacity, institutional water restrictions, and new federal farm
program and; (4) increase the availability of irrigation research
information and best management practice recommendations to Kansas
irrigators through a series of extension bulletins and updates based on
research-based information.
An advanced study was conducted to evaluate the water use
efficiency of high frequency deficit subsurface drip irrigation for
corn production. The 1994-1996 results indicate that corn yields can be
maintained at a level nearly equal to fully irrigated crop production
at significantly lower water inputs when daily deficit irrigation is
used. An advanced subsidy was initiated in 1996 to develop water/land
allocation strategies for corn using subsurface drip irrigation. This
substudy was initiated as a result of the changes in the federal farm
program which allow greater planning flexibility. These changes removed
the need of irrigated to protect base acreages, so economic efficiency
will be a strong determinant in water/land allocation strategies. This
substudy along with economic and system longevity analyses will be
continued in 1997.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Water is a precious resource to farmers in the Great
Plains. Corn is a principal crop for feeding stock. To produce corn in
the Great Plains, additional water applied as irrigation enhances
production. The most common irrigation methods are furrow irrigation or
center pivot irrigation. The need to conserve water has turned
attention to drip irrigation as an efficient alternative.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The research goal is to determine the feasibility of
subsurface drip irrigation and other alternative irrigation systems in
western Kansas to sustain irrigation corn production to support the
beef feedlot industry. The project also supports an educational effort
through collection and dissemination of information on efficient
irrigation methods.
The project has a significant and active technology transfer and
extension program. In 1996 alone, one paper was given an international
conference, three referred journal articles were submitted, two
extension publications were published, and ten other miscellaneous
presentations and publications were made. The computer program
Irrigation Economics Evaluation System is complete and will be
distributed by the Kansas State University Cooperative Extension
Service in 1997.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1993 with an appropriation of $94,000; $88,000 in fiscal year 1994; and
$79,000 in fiscal years 1995-1997 each year. The total funds
appropriated are $419,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $781,232 state appropriations, $55,205 product sales,
$60,907 industry and miscellaneous in 1991; $868,408 state
appropriations, $37,543 product sales, $35,484 industry and
miscellaneous in 1992; $833,324 state appropriations, $54,964 product
sales, $144,225 industry and miscellaneous in 1993. Amounts for other
fiscal years are not available.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research is being conducted at Kansas State
University. The field portion of the research is being conducted on
Research Centers at Colby and Garden City, Kansas. Additional work is
being carried out on campus at the Departments of Agronomy and
Agricultural Economics in Manhattan, Kansas.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The original anticipated completion date for the project
was May 31, 1998, following the funding in Fiscal Year 1997. The
original objectives of the project appear to be on track for completion
by that date.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The project has been peer reviewed. The reviewers felt
the project concept to be valid and the timetable for accomplishments
to be on target. The research as outlined in the proposal is within the
mission of the Agricultural Experiment Station and is a high priority
to Kansas agriculture.
water management, alabama
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Water Management, Alabama grant.
Response. The program components of the Water Management, Alabama
project include: renovation as a water quality enhancement practice for
pastures fertilized with poultry waste, the efficacy of a new biocidal
polymer water filter against Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts,
improving effluent quality of the in-pond raceway fish culture system
through removal and infiltration of fish wastes, relationships between
landscape characteristics and nonpoint pollution inputs to coastal
estuaries, and resource management for enhancement of environmental
quality as conservation reserve program contracts expire in the Alabama
Black Belt.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researchers believe that perennial
pastureland is the most common disposal area for waste collected from
confined animal operations in the humid Southeast. This is especially
true in broiler chicken productions areas such as Alabama, where litter
is generated, since this material can be used as both fertilizer and
feed in associated cattle operations. Most broiler production in this
region is highly concentrated where topography and soil fertility limit
row crop production. Although application of high rates of poultry
wastes to perennial pastures in these areas has the potential to cause
environmental pollution, operators have few alternatives to land
application. This research provides solutions and/or potential
recommendations for utilization of broiler litter in the best manner to
protect water from both nitrogen and phosphorous application. With the
considerable acreage that is coming off the Conservation Reserve
Program, this research will give guidance to landowners and government
agencies in the best use for the land. Published guideline handbooks
have been distributed and the researchers believe they are providing
much assistance to landowners, county agents, Natural Resources
Conservation Service personnel, and others in applying best management
practices.
The potential for Geographic Information Systems to be major tools
for determining the best use for land so as to protect the environment
will be enhanced because of this study. Entire watersheds can be
protected as landowners, land use planners and government entities make
decisions for the future. The data provided by this study are
particularly important in light of proposed revisions to the Coastal
Zone Management Act. Given concerns regarding land use activity in the
coastal zones, these data may provide indications of which combinations
of land use and land forms may be problematic in terms of water
quality.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. This is a new grant, however, water quality work has been
ongoing in Alabama in recent years. This previous research will be used
to strengthen and backdrop work for this grant.
Previous research has shown the relationships between cattle foot
traffic, forage canopy, ground cover, root biomass, and nutrient uptake
for grazed versus hayed tall fescue following two renovation tillage
treatments. As a followup to this research, 25 Conservation Reserve
programs were surveyed. This included 300 sampling points, each
covering 300 acres. Instrumentation was installed on several of the
properties for measurement of soil erodability.
Non-point source pollution in streams is being examined using the
Geographic Information System and Remote Sensing analysis tools to
assess the relationships between land use complex and water quality.
Lands within each sub-watershed were classified according to their use,
and the location of forested land use relative to the stream channel
was noted. A linkage model was developed which relates land use/land
cover with non-point source pollution.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1997 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is $170,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
for fiscal year 1996 are as follows: $894,344 state appropriations; and
$572,342 miscellaneous. It is anticipated that the University will more
than match federal funds for this grant with state appropriations and
miscellaneous non-federal funds in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This work is being conducted at the Auburn University
Main Campus, and at the Upper Coastal Plain Substation at Winfield,
Alabama, the Tennessee Valley Substation at Belle Mina, Alabama, the
Black Belt Substation at Marion Junction, Alabama, the Sand Mountain
Substation at Crossville, Alabama, and on private forest land near
Greenville, Alabama.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. It is anticipated that the completion date of the project
will be August 31, 1998, even though selected objectives will be met
sooner. Work is proceeding on all objectives and some of them have
already been met. Some objectives will be completed at the end of
summer 1997 and others will continue through August 31, 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The Program manager from the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service reviewed and evaluated the proposed
research prior to the award of the grant, and reviewed and evaluated
the annual progress reports from the Principal Investigator, following
internal review by the University. Annual progress reports are due to
be submitted by the individual research investigators to the University
on March 1, 1997, after which a University evaluation will be made on
each segment with the project leaders and department heads during March
and April, 1997, prior to submission to the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service for review and approval.
water quality
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Special Research Grants Water Quality Program.
Response. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES) continues support of this national, competitively-
awarded program as part of USDA's Water Quality Initiative. The program
supports research to investigate the impacts of non-point source
pollution from agriculture on water quality and to develop improved,
sustainable agricultural practices and systems that protect the
environment and are economically profitable. Also, this program
supports research on five Management Systems Evaluation Area (MSEA)
projects as part of the Midwest Initiative on Water Quality to develop
new farming systems that protect water quality, with research located
at 10 sites throughout the Corn Belt. This program is conducted jointly
with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, USDA's Agricultural
Research Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, extension
specialists, and other Federal, State, and local agencies. The water
quality grants have supported more than 300 research projects across
the country. In fiscal years 1996 and 1997, funds were awarded to the
five MSEA projects in the Midwest to continue the water quality systems
research started in 1990. In 1996, new projects were initiated as
Agricultural Systems for Environmental Quality. The new projects focus
on watershed-scale agriculture production systems that reduce pollution
of soil and water while maintaining productivity and profitability.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Response. Concerns have been raised by the public about the
possible risks to the environment and soil and water quality from the
use of agricultural chemicals. Better methods of detection of minor
amounts of chemical in water have made the public, farmers, and policy-
making more concerned about the use and management of these agriculture
chemicals and wastes, while meeting the challenge of maintaining the
efficiency and productivity of agricultural production systems. Water
quality continues to be of high priority at local, regional, and
national levels. Results from the research are providing technologies
to reduce pollutants, guidelines for site-specific farming and improved
farming and improved farming systems.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goals of the program were to determine the
extent to which agriculture has impacted groundwater quality, and to
develop new, improved, cost effective agricultural systems that enhance
groundwater quality. During the past three years, focus and allocation
on resources have increased for surface water quality. Major progress
has already been made on these goals. Examples of some of the results
of recently completed research include the following: (1) Nitrogen
continues to be of concern as a pollutant in our Nation's waters. The
rapid expansion of the Hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico in 1993 has
focused additional attention on nitrates coming from several sources,
including agriculture. Nitrogen testing research and implementation of
the Pre-sidedress Nitrogen Test in the Northeast and Midwest is helping
producers match the supply and demand for nitrogen, thus reducing
excess application; (2) Crop rotations can significantly reduce nitrate
pollution. In the Pacific Northwest, nitrate lost from the root zone of
irrigated potatoes can be effectively recaptured by following with a
grain or forage crop; (3) The Management System Evaluation Area
modeling group has adapted, improved, and verified the usefulness of
the Root Zone Water Quality Model as a tool for extending MSEA results
beyond the research sites. The model predicts the movement of water and
agricultural chemicals.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal 1997?
Response. The work under the Water Quality Program began in fiscal
year 1990 with an appropriation of $6,615,000. The subsequent
appropriations were as follows: $8,000,000 in fiscal year 1991;
$9,000,000 in fiscal year 1992; $8,950,000 in fiscal year 1993;
$4,230,000 in fiscal year 1994; and $2,757,000 in fiscal years 1995
through 1997. A total of $45,066,000 has been appropriated for the
Special Research Grants Water Quality Program.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal years?
Response. The non-federal funds in support of the Water Quality
Program, provided by state appropriations, industry, product sales, and
other local sources, have averaged approximately $1,000,000 annually
since the program began in 1990.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Funds provided under the Water Quality Program have been
awarded to institutions in virtually every state, so work is being
carried out in all parts of the country. The MSEA projects of the
Midwest Initiative on Water Quality are headquartered in Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio, with satellite locations in
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Three new projects located
in Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio were initiated in fiscal year
1995.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives.
Response. The original goals of the USDA Water Quality Research
Plan were to: (1) assess the seriousness and extent of agriculture's
impact on groundwater quality, and (2) develop new and improved
agricultural systems that are cost effective and enhance groundwater
quality. The original project was developed for five years with the
expectation that it would be reviewed and possibly extended beyond the
five year period if warranted. The 1995 review of the program
identified a need for increased attention to surface water quality
problems. The research funded under the Special Research Grants Program
has produced significant progress in understanding the impacts of
agricultural practices on surface and groundwater pollution, and in
developing improved agricultural systems that are economically and
environmentally sustainable. Implementation of some of these improved
agricultural systems is already underway in a number of states. The
focus over the next five states will be on developing and implementing
agricultural systems that utilize the results of research funded under
this program. The March 1995 Water Quality Users Conference brought
together research findings and new technologies that have been
developed.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An external review team evaluated the Management System
Evaluation Areas and associated component projects. All MSEA projects
have an impressive record of successfully implemented interdisciplinary
teams to study water quality problems. Credibility and confidence in
experimental data has been assured by implementation of quality
assessment/quality control procedures, and a diversified delivery
system/educational outreach effort will be a necessary key component of
MSEA success.
weed control, north dakota
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the New Methods of Weed Control, North Dakota grant.
Response. The project is designed to reduce the environmental
pollution caused by the extensive usage of herbicides for weed control
and provide growers with environmentally safe weed control systems. The
present project address three areas; one being crop production
practices, second, weed biology and herbicide resistance, and third,
efficient herbicide usage. In crop production practices, systems
experiments have been established at three locations that include crop
rotation, tillage, seeding method and timing; these variables are
incorporated into sustainable, reduced tillage and conventional
systems. Results being monitored include the effect of weed control
intensity on long-term weed infestations and economic returns. The
emphasis in weed biology research is with kochia, wild oat, and green
foxtail that are herbicide-resistant. In efficient herbicide usage,
several factors are being studied such as application methods to
improve weed retention of herbicides and weed-detecting sprayers to
treat only areas where weeds are present.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The research addresses new methods to control weeds using
systems control with multi-year, multi-crop rotations, reduced
pesticide applications, that better simulate a typical on-farm sequence
than short-term grants. Some variables included in the research are
reduced pesticide applications and techniques to enhance herbicide
efficacy.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to develop new, efficient weed
control methods. To accomplish this, long-term field experiments have
been initial to obtain basic crop-weed biology and production system
information. The first three years of the rotation experiements have
been completed in 1993 through 1995. Changes in weed populations were
beginning to occur in 1995 and the environmental conditions were
atypically wet during these three years; these observations support the
need to complete at least two cycles of the rotation for a total of at
least eight years to obtain reliable scientific information. The
improved efficiency of weed control method has developed adjuvants to
overcome the antagonism of salts, which naturally occur in water and
reduce the efficacy of some herbicides. Another approach is adjuvants
to reduce the herbicide rate required and/or to improve their
performance consistency. Kochia genetic lines have been developed that
are homozygous for resistance to various studies to determine
inhertiance and possible spread of herbicide resistance. Fields are
being monitored for the development of kochia resistance to dicamba. A
better understanding of how herbicide-resistance weeds occur in a
population should be useful to developing methods to prevent herbicide
resistance from becoming an unmanageable problem.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1992 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $500,000
per year; $470,000 in fiscal year 1994; and $423,000 in fiscal years
1995 through 1997. A total of $2,739,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: no matching in 1991; $27,030 state appropriations in
1992, $48,472 state appropriations in 1993, $41,969 state
appropriations in 1994, $71,847 state appropriations in 1995, and an
estimated $70,000 state appropriation in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at North Dakota State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original anticipated completion date was a minimum of
5 years, with an additional 5 years currently being projected. The
original objectives have been satisfactory met, but the research with
biological traits of herbicide-resistant weeds require more time,
depending upon whether the traits prove to be simply inherited or
involve multiple genes with a complex inheritance. The anticipated
completion date of the additional and related objectives is 2001.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Each year the grant is peer reviewed and reviewed by
CSREES's senior scientific staff. A summary of that review indicated
excellent progress in the achieving the objectives.
wheat genetics, kansas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Wheat Genetics, Kansas grant.
Response. This project provides partial support for the Wheat
Genetics Resource Center at the University of Kansas, which focuses on
collection, evaluation, maintenance and distribution of exotic wheat
related germplasm needed to develop new wheat cultivar resistant to
disease, insects, and environmental stress.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal or the principal
research, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researchers believes most cultivated
varieties of wheat are derived from common sources. They lack the rich
genetic diversity needed to develop resistance to diseases, insects and
environmental stress. The replacement of genetically rich primitive
cultivar and land races by moderm, more uniform cultivars all over the
world is causing erosion of wheat germplasm resources. New pests or
those that have overcome varietal resistance pose a constant threat to
the nations wheat production. Genetic resistance often resides in wild
relatives of wheat. The reseachers believe this program, which was
established in Kansas, is providing service to wheat breeders
nationwide.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished?
Response. The original goal of this reseach was to enhance the
genetic diversity available to wheat breeders nationally and
internationally by collecting, evaluating, maintaining and distributing
germplasm derived from wild relatives of wheat. To date 25 germplasm
releases have been made containing new genes for resistance to such
pests as Hessian fly, greenbug, leaf rust, soilborne mosaic virus and
Russian wheat aphid Germplasm stocks with resistance to leaf rust and
powdery mildew are under development. Evaluation of germplasm for
important resistance genes was carried out by Center scientists and
cooperating institutions. The Center filled 30 requests from U.S. wheat
breeders for seed from the germplasm collection and 57 requestss for
seed of germplasm releases, as well as large numbers from international
breeders.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this week been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989.
Appropriations were for fiscal year 1989, $100,000; fiscal year 1990,
$99,000; fiscal year 1991, $149,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $159,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $196,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997,
$176,000 each year. A total of $1,390,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The nonfederal funds provided for this grant were as
follows: $493,285 state appropriations, $31,414 product sales, and
$84,610, other non-federal in 1991; $414,882 state appropriations, $14,
259 product sales, and $102,086 other non-federal in 1992; and $533,848
state appropriations, $32,297 product sales, and $163,937 non-federal
in 1993, $468,960 in 1994; $563,671, non-federal funding for 1995 and
$457,840 of non-federal support for 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This research is being conducted at Kansas State
University by the Wheat Genetics Resource Center.
Mr. Skeen. When was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The collection, evaluation and enhancement of Wheat
germplasm is continual process. Therefore this project does not have a
defined completion date. The PI anticipate continuing the work for an
indefinite period of time.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This Special Grant has not been subjected to a
comprehensive review. However each annual proposal is peer reviewed at
the institution and reviewed by CSREES scientists.
wood utilization research
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Wood Utilization research grant.
Response. The new wood utilization knowledge and technologies
discovered help maintain a vigorous, competitive, domestic forest
industry. This, in turn, helps achieve sustainable forests since
improved utilization extends timber supplies. The research includes:
meeting environmental objectives in timber harvesting and forest
products manufacture; extending the timber resource through research,
including management; exploiting pesticides developed from forest
trees; wood machining; introducing small forest products industries to
wood technology; and developing new products from wood and recycled
materials.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. Research at four of the centers improves the utilization
of those forest species that grow in these regions, i.e. western
conifers, southern pines, Lake States hardwoods, and northeastern
forests. The other two centers conduct research in specific
subdisciplines, i.e. machining of wood and incubator technology
transfer. The wood machining work at North Carolina State University
improves wood machining. Wood industry incubator work at Duluth,
Minnesota, contributes to rural development of local economies.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research, and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to generate new knowledge that
would benefit the forest industry. This goal has been fine-tuned to
place additional emphasis on environmental stewardship, resource
extension, technology transfer, and scientist education. Research that
extends the resource benefits forest ecosystems and increases the
competitiveness of the forest products industry. In addition, the
principal researchers believe consumers benefit from the more efficient
production. For example, quality control procedures have saved $200,000
per year in one mill and $300,000 per year in a second through reduced
waste. The researchers estimate that hand-held calculator programs
developed by this research have resulted in savings of nearly
$1,000,000 to woodworkers. Research has reduced the cost of cleanup of
superfund sites by tenfold due to the use of biodeterioration
technology. Water quality is believed to have been improved due to the
introduction of bacteria that consume polychlorinated phenols in
contaminated water sources. Laser cutting of wood holds potential for
high savings in raw materials. Systems analysis of sawmill operations
has allowed managers to improve the efficiencies of operation.
Improvements in membrane pressing of cabinet doors has improved
production and product quality. The research developed a dielectric
wood defect deterioration system to improve automated production
systems. These are a few examples of the benefits from continuing
research in wood utilization. Each of these centers has an advisory
committee that establishes priorities and peer reviews research
proposals.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $3,000,000; fiscal years 1986 through 1989,
$2,852,000 per year; fiscal year 1990, $2,816,000; fiscal years 1991
and 1992, $2,852,000 per year; fiscal year 1993, $4,153,000; fiscal
year 1994, $4,176,000; and fiscal year 1995-1996, $3,758,000 per year.
A total of $39,309,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Mississippi State University non-federal funds were;
State appropriations $2,498,800, $2,178,725, $2,353,225, and
$2,331,691, $2,650,230, and $2,778,535 for 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994,
1995, and 1996, respectively. In addition, industrial funds averaged
$553,700 for those 4 years in support of the Mississippi Forest
Products Laboratory. Oregon State University state appropriations were:
$1,337,962, $1,394,304, $1,256,750, $1,252,750, $1,417,755, and
$1,117,000 for 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996, respectively.
Estimated non-public support averages $500,000 per year. Michigan State
University non-federal contributions for 1994 totaled $910,481. Three
new locations were added in 1994: University of Minnesota-Duluth non-
federal match was $590,000, $550,000, and $560,000 for 1994, 1995, and
1996. North Carolina State University was $126,000, $165,000, and
$135,000 for 1994, 1995, and 1996. University of Maine was $600,000,
$445,723, and $459,100 for 1994, 1995, and 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. There are six locations. The initial three--Oregon State
University, Mississippi State University, and Michigan State
University--were joined by the University of Minnesota-Duluth, North
Carolina State University, and the University of Maine in fiscal year
1994.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original objective was to build and maintain strong
regional centers of wood utilization research to address the Nation's
needs for wood products through strengthening university wood products
research and graduate education. These centers have been established,
and wood utilization improves each year as a result. Projects begun in
1997 will be completed by 2001.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Progress reports from the six centers are reviewed yearly or more
frequently. Center directors last met together in June 1996. Centers
all have advisory committees which meet periodically. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture conducts informal on-site reviews
periodically. The Duluth and Oregon sites were visited in 1996. A
Departmental panel reviewed the original three centers in 1992 and
1993. At that time, the original objectives were broadened. The centers
have responded to the review recommendations by increasing their focus
on meeting environmental objectives by conducting research leading to
sustained timber production; extending the timber supply through
improved processing; developing new structural applications for wood;
and developing wood extractives to substitute for pesticides,
preservatives, and adhesives.
wool research
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the wool research grant.
Response. The overall goals for this research are the development
of objective measures of wool, mohair, cashmere and other animal fibers
to increase profitability of the sheep and Angora goat industries.
Specific objectives include: develop and evaluate measurement
techniques for rapid objectives evaluation of wool, mohair, cashmere
and other animal fibers; increase the use of objective measurements to
increase fiber production, quality and income to producers, and
increase consumer acceptance of wool fabrics. The fiscal year 1996
grants terminate between January 1997 and April 1998. The 1997 grant
proposals have been received and are being reviewed.
Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. Collaboration exists among researchers in Texas, Wyoming
and Montana associated with this grant and other federal, university
and industry scientists on a wide basis to assure responsiveness to the
needs of those involved in wool and mohair production, marketing and
processing.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The overall goal for this research to develop objective
measures of wool, mohair, cashmere and other animal fibers to increase
profitability of the sheep and Angora goat industries remains the
primary emphasis of the research. Computer software programs for the
automatic image analysis system are being evaluated and improved for
the purpose of measuring the average diameter and distribution of
animal fibers. Software is also being modified to permit rapid,
accurate measurement of other fiber properties such as fiber style
crimp and character. Near infra red reflectance analysis was compared
to standard practices for yield measurement of mohair. Progress was
again made to improve the quantity and quality of fibers produced from
sheep and goats. Selection and crossbreeding experiments, part of a
national study, were conducted to evaluate wool characteristics,
reproduction, and lamb quantity and quality of crosses between Merino
and Rambouillet breeds. Correlation studies were completed to compare
the measurements made by the laser scan image analyzer with those made
by microprojection. Numerous scientific and technical papers were
published during the past year.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
amount of $150,000 for fiscal years 1984-1985; $142,000 per year for
fiscal years 1986-1989; $144,000 for fiscal year 1990; $198,000 for
fiscal year 1991; and $250,000 per year for fiscal year 1992-1993;
fiscal year 1994, $235,000; and fiscal years 1995-1997, $212,000 each
year. A total of $2,581,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year.
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $150,913 state appropriations, $11,800 product sales,
$5,817 industry, and $3,556 miscellaneous in 1991; $111,394 state
appropriations, $25,451 product sales, $41,442 industry, $3,068
miscellaneous in 1992; and $152,699 state appropriations, $39,443
product sales; $40,804 industry and $3,556 miscellaneous in 1993;
$150,094 state appropriations, $35,284 product sales, $36,484 industry
and $3,556 miscellaneous in 1994; and $67,345 state appropriations,
$10,000 product sales; $34,325 industry contributions in 1995; and
$39,033 non-federal support in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The research is in progress at the Texas A&M University,
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, the University of Wyoming and
Montana State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional related
objectives?
Response. The original objectives to improve the efficiency and
profitability of wool, mohair and cashmere production and marketing are
still valid. Specific objectives for individual laboratories and
experiments are continually revised to reflect the changing priorities
for the wool and mohair industries and consumers. It is anticipated
that five years will be required to complete the current research.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The principal investigators from the three institutions
meet annually to evaluate progress and prioritize research according to
industry needs. The research for this Special Grant is a component of a
regional research project which entails coordination by the agency,
reporting of accomplishments annually, and overall project peer review
every three years. Last year the regional research project was reviewed
and approved for renewal. Annually, Special Research Grant proposals
are submitted to the agency for review and approval. The design and
procedures in the most recent proposal were deemed to be adequate to
supply the data necessary to fulfill the objectives. Excellent
facilities and equipment are available to provide scientists with
complete fleece analyses for objective measurements of wool and mohair.
The investigators are able to conduct unique experiments as a result of
the very specialized instrumentation available for the project. The
agency representative periodically visits the research facilities and
reviews progress, the most recent in May of 1994. It was concluded that
the research was addressing the priorities of the U.S. wool and mohair
industry, contributing to the introduction of value-based marketing
systems, assisting in the establishment of a nucleus for U.S. cashmere
production, and being effectively coordinated with other research
laboratories. Research results are annually reported to the industry
and the agency providing the means for adoption of new practices to
improve the marketing of wool and mohair.
agricultural development in the american pacific
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Agricultural Development in the American Pacific
program.
Response. The Agricultural Development in the American Pacific
(ADAP) project allows the Land Grant research, extension, and
instruction programs of the five participating institutions--American
Samoa Community College, College of Micronesia, Northern Marianas
College, University of Guam and University of Hawaii--to collaborate
and cooperate to enhance their impact on agriculture and communities.
ADAP is a mechanism to address common regional client-based issues
while maintaining cultural, rural, economic and environmental
integrity. When American Samoa assumes the Chair of ADAP in 1997, it
will be the first time in the program's ten-year history that ADAP will
be lead by an institution other than Hawaii. Detailed preparations are
underway for a formal review by CSREES in July 1997. The five
institutions have nearly completed the required review document and
have formed three categories for future priorities: sustainable
systems, collaboration/partnerships, and communication systems. ADAP
Deans/Directors will use this review as input to formulating a new
strategic plan articulated by and for the American Pacific.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, that is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes the five participating
institutions are geographically dispersed yet facing many similar
issues which can best be served through extensive networking and
communication. ADAP facilitates communications and seeks to raise
levels of academic achievement and improve the quality of education. In
addition to a capacity building degree studies program for bachelors,
masters and doctoral students, ADAP in 1996 opened a new area in
faculty/staff development to improve institutional capability and
credibility. For 1997, each ADAP institution will self-determine their
best means for electronic communications and an independent assessment
of overall electronic communication needs will be conducted.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. ADAP 's original goals are embodied in the 1992 strategic
plan, namely to develop human resources within the institutions, to
more effectively manage agricultural programs within and among the
institutions, and to focus resources available on ADAP mission needs.
Priority projects for 1997 include: animal health survey, livestock
waste management, dietary guidelines for Pacific foods, artificial
insemination demonstration/education, youth-at-risk assessment, and
market information collaboration with ``state'' Departments of
Agriculture.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year 1997?
Response. This work has been underway for seven years with an
annual appropriation of $650,000 to the former Extension Service. In
fiscal year 1994, an appropriation of $608,000 was made to CSREES to
continue the ADAP program. The fiscal year 1995 appropriation was
$544,000 and fiscal year 1996 and 1997 were $564,000 each year. The
appropriation total to CSREE is $2,280,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Non-federal funds are not provided. Unspecified in-kind
support, such as facilities, equipment and administrative support, are
provided by each institution and, in some specific projects, by non-
ADAP collaborating institutions.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This work is being carried out by American Samoa
Community College, College of Micronesia, Northern Marianas College,
University of Guam, and the University of Hawaii.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The ADAP program has been gradually achieving original
program objectives, particularly in the areas of improvements in
institutional capacity and communications. The 1997 formal review by
CSREES will evaluate achievement of the objectives of the 1992
strategic plan. It is anticipated that an additional 5 to 10 years will
be needed to fully achieve collaborative integration of the American
Pacific land grant programs.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The ADAP program was last evaluated by a review team in
1992 which prepared a 5 year strategic plan. That strategic plan has
guided the ADAP mission an activities, including the call for the
forthcoming formal program review.
alternative fuels characterization laboratory
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alternative Fuels Characterization Laboratory
research grant.
Response. The principal researchers believe these research and
information dissemination activities have advanced the utilization of
ethanol-based and other alternative fuels. They believe they have
resolved issues affecting the use of ethanol in conventional and
reformulated gasolines. The research addressed evaporative emissions
from fuels, performance of vapor control sorbents, the environmental
effects of ethanol fuels, and developing an ethanol-based fuel for
piston-engine aircraft. Dissemination involved promoting ethanol fuels
in the Red River Valley.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The researchers believe the need is to ensure the
availability of unbiased scientific data to ensure that renewable fuels
are represented accurately in the marketplace. The project is
developing partnerships with public and private sectors in advancing
cleaner burning fuels technology. Fuels from renewable resources will
reduce U.S. dependence on overseas petroleum, while providing cash
crops for farmers. Renewable fuels are essential to energy and economic
sustainability, benefitting people, communities, and the Nation.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research, and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. One goal is to compare alternative fuels to conventional
fuels, and promote alternative fuels through the international Red
River Valley Clean Cities Coalition. Another goal is to provide
consumers with information regarding the efficiencies of the broad
range of fuels, and provide information on conversion of agricultural
materials and other biomass materials to alternative fuels. The program
was instrumental in building North Dakota's first public ethanol
fueling site and in solving cold-start problems.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported in part by this grant began in fiscal
year 1991. The appropriations for fiscal years 1991 through 1993 were
$250,000 per year, $235,000 in fiscal year 1994, $204,000 in fiscal
year 1995, and $218,000 in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. A total of
$1,625,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Over the duration of the grant, about $845,000 in non-
federal funding has been allocated toward performance of grant
objectives. For fiscal year 1996, non-federal funding was $105,000. In
fiscal year 1995, it was $50,000. In fiscal year 1994, it was $60,000.
In fiscal year 1991-1993, non-federal funding was $630,000, which
included $600,000 from the Illinois State Geological Survey to evaluate
an ethanol-based process for coal desulfurization.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, is the site
of the Energy and Environmental Research Center, a major research
laboratory employing over 250 scientists and technicians.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives.
Response. The anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project was April 30, 1992. This research has been
completed, and its results have been published. In 1995, the scope and
collaborative abilities of this program were expanded to include the
Red River Valley Clean Cities program and collaborative efforts with
industry and economic development partners. Most of the research and
dissemination activities now underway could be completed by 2000.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation?
Response. The last agency on-site evaluation was conducted in July
1996 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The program was given a
very favorable review based on its ability to forge partnerships with
both regional and national public and private organizations committed
to commercial development of alternative fuels, its ability to
disseminate research results to an international technical audience,
and its ability to provide up-to-date research and unbiased information
in response to scientific needs, regulatory demands, and public
requests.
center for agriculture and rural development
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the center for agriculture and rural development
program.
Response. The research provides current economic information of
international trade in agriculture and analyses of the implications of
trade policy alternatives on the agricultural sector of the United
States and other countries.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. According to the proposal, trade negotiations and
agreements are of national concern to policymakers, farmers, and
agribusiness industries because of the implications for maintaining or
opening markets and establishing terms of trade and prices. Typical
agreements are extremely complex, requiring analysis by specialists to
determine outcomes and to provide objective and accurate information to
those impacted by such agreements.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research, and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to assess and evaluate various
proposals affecting agricultural trade, to provide analytical support
to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and to provide
information to farmers and agribusiness firms on the competitive
implications of such agreements.
An extensive number of theoretical studies and empirical and
descriptive analyses of policy issues and technical problems pertaining
to the Uruguay Round of negotiations were used by negotiators and the
agribusiness community. Studies included the development of
international trade models and assessments of trade options for meat,
dairy, feed and cereal grains, oilseeds, and other commodities; impacts
of the agreement upon selected countries; and reforms needed for
compliance. Analysis included determination of the value and
implications of export subsidies, import protection, and internal
support mechanism and levels. Knowledge developed in this phase is now
being used to monitor the effects of Uruguay Round implementation and
the differential impacts for developed, developing and transitional
economies.
This grant supports six projects focusing on General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade monitoring and implementation problems; implications
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for Eastern Europe,
Baltic and the Newly Independent States; development of a model to
assess the North American Free Trade Agreement and its linkages with
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; trade implications of U.S.
food and development aid in developing countries; integration of China
into world agricultural markets; and special projects as requested for
the U.S. Trade Representative's office.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This research program was initiated in fiscal year 1989.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1989, $750,000; fiscal years 1990 and 1991, $741,000 per year;
fiscal years 1992-1993, $750,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $705,000;
fiscal year 1995, $612,000; fiscal year 1996, $655,000 and fiscal year
1997, $355,000. A total of $6,059,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $111,210 State appropriations and $175,616
miscellaneous for a total of $286,826 in fiscal year 1991; $113,779
State appropriations and $173,117 miscellaneous for a total of $286,896
in fiscal year 1992; $120,138 State appropriations and $164,707
miscellaneous for a total of $284,845 in fiscal year 1993; $161,673
State appropriations and $32,000 miscellaneous for a total of $193,673
in fiscal year 1994; $161,000 State and $30,000 miscellaneous for a
total of $191,000 in fiscal year 1995; $70,000 State appropriations and
$44,000 miscellaneous for a total of $114,000 in fiscal year 1996.
Fiscal year 1997 preliminary information indicates $60,325 in State
appropriations and information is not yet available on miscellaneous
funds.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The research program is carried out by the Center for
Agriculture and Rural Development at Iowa State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completing date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The university researchers anticipate that the work
should be completed in 1998 with analyses of the final agreement of the
Uruguay Round and related trade agreements and dissemination of these
results. Work covered by the most recent agreement would be completed
by the end of 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Evaluation of this project occurred as a part of the 1997
project review and approval process. We found that this project was
useful in estimating impacts of the Uruguay Round provisions on world
trade in important U.S. agricultural commodities.
center for north american studies, texas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Center for North American Studies program.
Response. The purpose of this grant is to develop linkages with
educational and other institutions in Mexico and Canada to share data
and faculty, conduct research identifying trade opportunities and
marketing problems, conduct policy analysis, and develop a broad range
of training programs preparing agricultural/agribusiness firms for
international marketing opportunities.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The program director believes that citizens of the United
States, Mexico and Canada have some similar concerns about the impact
of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and that new,
innovative approaches involving international cooperation are needed to
assess and evaluate these issues. Research and training are needed to
provide information to evaluate alternatives for expanding U.S. exports
and resolving potential social, economic, and environmental conflicts.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research, and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal is to promote strong agricultural ties among the
three North American countries, ensure the continued competitiveness of
U.S. agriculture, and foster greater cooperation among the three
countries in resolving critical agricultural issues of common interest.
As a result of this project, cooperative study, research, policy
analysis, and training programs have been developed and presented to
U.S. producers and agribusiness managers, reaching over 2,600 people
regarding trade opportunities in Mexico, impacts of expanded trade on
selected agricultural sectors, and the procedures of international
marketing. The Center recently co-sponsored the Tri-National Research
Symposium, ``NAFTA and Agriculture: Is the Experiment Working?'' in San
Antonio with 215 participants, of which 100 were from Mexico. The
proceedings are available electronically through the Symposium Web page
on the Internet. Research comparing the competitiveness of major
agricultural production sectors is focused on Mexico's dairy,
livestock, meat, feed grain, and fresh vegetable industries.
Information databases on North American agriculture are being built to
support the Center programs and are accessible on the Web. The
electronic database on NAFTA and agriculture currently contain over
2,400 articles from major U.S., Canadian, and Mexican publications. A
study of trans-boundary trade and environmental linkages found that
existing institutions in both countries do not adequately address
environmental losses or gains.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994
with an appropriation of $94,000; $81,000 in fiscal year 1995; and
$87,000 in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. A total of $349,000 has been
appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $39,000 State appropriations in fiscal year 1994 and
$54,000 in fiscal year 1995. The annual State contributions for fiscal
years 1996 and 1997 exceed $60,000.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The program is being carried out at Texas A&M University
through the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in collaboration with
the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, and other
universities and agencies of the Texas A&M University System.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 12
months. The current phase of the program will be completed in the year
2000.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
Response. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in August
1996 as it evaluated the project proposal for 1996 and concluded that
progress on the four objectives was made and that a satisfactory plan
of work had been planned for the next funding period. Linkages were
made with counterparts at Mexican institutions and cooperative research
projects are being planned. Similar linkages will be made with
counterparts in Canada.
data information system questions
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of system development
activities that have been funded.
Response. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES) is in the process of funding a cooperative agreement
with the University of Arkansas to provide national leadership in
coordinating the efforts of our university partners in helping us
determine appropriate content for a Research, Education, and Economics
Information System--REEIS--wide information system. In addition, the
University of Arkansas will provide essential services in managing and
coordinating a national Steering Committee responsible for overseeing
the overall design, development, testing, and implementation of
Research, Education, and Economics Information System (REEIS).
Similarly, funds have been allocated to employ a technical services
manager and a program analyst to oversee contracting with outside
sources to design and launch REEIS and to comply with the necessary
clearances and regulations applicable to information technology
systems. In addition, funds have been allocated to secure a temporary
director through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) to
coordinate and guide the overall aspects of development, testing, and
implementing REEIS. Remaining funds are being allocated for contracting
with a private sector firm to conduct a strategic audit of available
data and a national needs assessment.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional or local need for this
activity?
Response. USDA's Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission
agencies and their university partners lack a central, integrated,
user-friendly electronic information system capable of providing a
knowledge base of the thousands of programs and projects for which they
are responsible that focus on food, agriculture, natural resources, and
rural development. Such an information system is increasingly needed to
enable the Department and its partners to readily conduct both
comprehensive baseline and ongoing assessments as well as evaluations
of research, education, extension, and economics programs and projects.
In recent years, this need has become more urgent for several reasons.
First, the United States needs a visionary public funded research and
development program to produce essential knowledge and innovations for
meeting growing competition in a global market--which is largely
attributable to the expanding research and development efforts of
foreign nations. Second, a comprehensive information system is needed
to serve as a primary reference source for development of new research
and education projects on such diverse issues as increasing
productivity in agriculture and processing, improving the safety and
quality of food, and enhancing the sustainability of the environment
and rural communities. Third, Federal/State policy makers and
administrators are requiring empirical analyses to account for
historical, current, and future use of public funds and to provide a
basis for redirecting funds to higher priority problems. Fourth, the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has imposed reporting
demands which current, decentralized information systems are not
prepared to adequately satisfy.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this initiative and what
has been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this initiative was to develop an
information system that can provide real-time tracking of research,
extension and education projects and programs; has the capability to
communicate vertically between field, state and Federal locations; will
enable the REE agencies and their partners to conduct rapid and
comprehensive policy assessments and program evaluation analyses;
facilitates assessment of technologies and practices employed in
extension, education, economics and research activities at the field
and/or regional levels; provides clear and transparent public access to
relevant parts of the information; and provides information management
tools to enhance the timeliness and accuracy of REE-wide responses to
inquiries about program objectives and expenditures.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Congress first appropriated $.4 million for REEIS in FY
1997 to begin planning its design and development. We are in the
process of establishing a National Steering Committee to provide advice
and guidance throughout the development and implementation process. The
Steering Committee will be chaired by a notable administrator of
extension and research at a key land-grant university. It will be
comprised of both users and producers of Research, Education, and
Economics agencies' data, including program officials and program
leaders, information system managers from other Federal agencies,
representatives from Federal oversight agencies, program/project
leaders representing partner institutions, and private sector users of
REE data. Ultimately, this body will be responsible for recommending
work specifications and for assessing the quality of work performed by
an experienced and successful private contractor specializing in
public-sector information systems.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Non-federal funding does not apply at this time.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Leadership responsibility for REEIS resides within the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service's Science
and Education Resources Development division. This provides for
effective integration of the Current Research Information System, the
Food and Agricultural Education Information System, and appropriate
extension data bases. CSREES is working closely with all REE agencies
and with the university system via a cooperative agreement with the
University of Arkansas. We hope also to use the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act to secure an IPA from another university to carry out
REEIS essential management responsibilities. In addition, a process is
underway to engage a private sector firm specializing in public-sector
information systems to design, develop, test, and implement REEIS.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. It is anticipated that REEIS can be operational by the
year 2000. The current appropriation of $400,000 will cover start-up
costs such as establishment of a National Steering Committee,
preparation and specifications for contracting with an outside firm,
selection of a contractor, a needs assessment, identification of
functional requirements, a draft plan for designing and developing the
system including recommendations for in-house hardware, operating
system, and software programs. The $600,000 increase request for FY
1998 will allow for implementing, testing, and refining a prototype,
including preparation of an operations manual and a full-scale
implementation and maintenance plan.
The Research, Education, and Economics Information System meets a
high priority national need for a continuing national information
system. REEIS is being designed to meet the data information needs of
all REE agencies and their university and private sector cooperators.
It will link data systems on research, education, extension, and
economics. Therefore, annual maintenance costs will be ongoing.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted? Provide a summary
of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An evaluation of Research, Education, and Economics
Information System is not appropriate at this early stage of
development.
geographic information system
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the geographic information system program.
Response. The program is designed to transfer evolving geographic
information systems technologies to state and local governments. This
technology--and in particular--the related technologies including
Internet access for information, data bases, and telecommunication for
cooperative system development are sufficiently complicated that most
of the people familiar enough with them to serve as effective transfer
agents are researchers. The current program is being carried out by a
non-profit corporation, The National Center for Resource Innovations
whose directors and participants are the sub-contractors who are
carrying out the program. These sub-contractors range over a wide
spectrum of sizes and special areas of site based expertise involving
different Departments in four academic institutions, one regional
development authority and one non-profit corporation working on agro-
environmental problems in the Chesapeake Bay. A new site at the
University of New Mexico has been added by the Board this year. This
unique institutional arrangements has helped fill a unique role in
linking some of the otherwise balkanized efforts of agencies and
academic institutions and now seven regions of the country.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes few national programs
have impact without translation to the local environment, including
either regional, state, or local government level. Much progress has
been made in developing computer based information systems ranging from
data on transportation systems to the quantity of a resource. Given a
geographic dimension, these information systems provide an invaluable
vehicle for sharing information over the various levels of government
and even facilitate the integration of disparate data. The work of this
project is needed to transfer this technology to state and local
governments whose limited training budgets and sometimes isolated
location make it difficult to use the latest technology. The technology
developed in this program is useful in improving the management of our
natural resources. While concentrating on issues related to
agriculture, the independent, non-profit nature of the National Center
for Resource Innovations facilitates linkages across disciplinary and
institutional barriers, make it possible to use work at the state and
local levels which was initiated at the Federal level. While the early
phases of GIS concentrated on building information systems related to
rural physical and natural resources, the current challenges is to
integrate human economic, social and demographic information to better
understand the relationship of human communities to the landscape.
There is a need for this to better understand the technology consumer.
In addition, there is a need for integrated information about other
biological system including insects, plants, and animals as we extend
our work to include whole farm management within an ecosystem-based
environment.
In the context, newer high capacity technologies are also beginning
to provide other dimensions--those of high level time related
phenomena, including weather-associated transport of biological
materials and their relationship to food producing systems. CSREES has
funded seminal research in integrated pest and animal management in the
1970's and 1980's. At the other end of the spatial scale, the role of
the public sector in geographic information system based precision
farming technologies, data capture, and information synthesis as the
subject of a current study group.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this work was to serve as a pilot
project for the transfer of geographic information systems technology
to local governments as related to natural resources. It has carried
out this function in a useful way. With impetus from this project and
similar efforts economic and biological data are being presented in
maps fashion useful to state and local governments and individuals.
This project has provided the impetus and linkages to facilitate
planning work done in South Georgia with some assistance given to local
tax assessment and parcel identification by a Department of Commerce
sponsored Economic Development Authority. The Chesapeake project has
linked seven state conservation entities in an effort to develop better
watershed models and decision support systems. The Arkansas portion of
the project has focused on training to educate county employees with
regard to the technology of geographic information systems and
geographic positioning systems. The University of Wisconsin has
continued to simultaneously support the high technology end of the
evolution of new tools and seek new ways to implement change while
measuring the impact of such implementation. The work in North Dakota
has continued to focus on geographically referenced real time weather
information for payments and others. And, in the smallest of the
efforts under this program, the efforts at Central Washington have
provided training for a number of State personnel and others from
various levels and institutions on how to utilize geographic
information systems.
It is anticipated that the fiscal year 1997 grant will support work
under this program through March 1998. The proposal for this work in
1996 has been received and reviewed.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal year 1991, $747,000; fiscal
years 1992 and 1993, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $1,011,000;
fiscal year 1995, $877,000; fiscal year 1996, $939,000; and fiscal year
1997, $844,000. A total of $6,912,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. For fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1996, to date,
the work in this program had $4,553,252 in non-federal support. In
fiscal year 1990 non-federal support was $714,940 consisting of
equipment, data bases, and other miscellaneous contributions from
foundations, city, and state governments. In fiscal year 1991 non-
federal support was $25,000 from county government. In fiscal year 1992
non-federal support was $366,016 from county government, computer
companies, and state governments consisting of equipment, software,
facilities, and miscellaneous support. In fiscal year 1993, non-Federal
support was $713,900 consisting of financial and miscellaneous support
from foundations, county and state governments. In fiscal year 1994,
the non-Federal support was $713,643. In fiscal year 1995 the non-
Federal support was $987,000. In fiscal year 1996 it was $567,173. It
is anticipated to be $456,582 in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The National Center for Resource Innovation Chesapeake
Bay is located in Rosslyn, Virginia. The group is working under a
memorandum of understanding with several states of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed project. The southeastern center, in Valdosta, Georgia, in
affiliation with the South Georgia Regional Development Center, has
developed a comprehensive plan for the City of Adel as a model for
other urban centers in their ten-county region. The southwestern
center, in Fayetteville, Arkansas serves local governments through its
training facilities at the University basing is technical approach on
their expertise and past experiences with the federally developed
system known as GRASS. They have developed pilot projects for some
local jurisdictions and state level data bases which they have provided
online. Central Washington University focuses on training in ARC/INFO
for state planning and in three local governments and the Yakima Nation
in the Yakima watershed. The north central center in Grand Forks, North
Dakota, in affiliation with the University of North Dakota, focuses on
relating real time weather data to other spatial attributes. In
addition, this center has sought to implement ideas developed in other
centers in the distance learning concept. The University of Wisconsin-
Madison, functioning as the Great Lakes center, continues a long
history of involvement in the application of this technology at the
local level with strong focus on soils/land-use and the institutional
aspects of the integration of a new technology.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original objectives are to build new institutional
frameworks for developing and disseminating geographic and related
information to local decisionmakers has been largely completed. Each
site has developed unique approaches to solving the greatest needs in
their region for applications of these modern technologies and many
innovative applications of these techniques have been implemented. New
technologies, including Internet based educational and information
exchange have created tremendous demand among National Center Resource
Innovations' customers to expand its program to include these new
technologies in order to bring their primarily rural users into new
eras of public education and information management. Last year,
National Center Resource Innovation became a valued educator about the
public roles in and information needs for precision farming. The
Center's view is that information that can sustain individual farmer's
decisions can also be extended to the needs of thelocal public
agencies. Integrating temporal information such as weather, and
satellite imagery--is needed by everyone who needs to model future
effects of their decision upon land processes. The Center is moving
forward into these new territories to facilitate many of the newest
initiatives of federal agencies who must work together to build modern
systems for public policy. As resources continue to be used and
planning continues to be required; as technology continues to evolve,
systems, knowledge and decisions must continue to get better. It is
reasonable to assume that while the need exists for the latter, a
definitive completion date for the Center's work may not exist.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. No formal evaluation of this project has been developed
by CSREES. In addition, each Center site prepared a cost-effectiveness
study. Each site developed the study using the help of external users.
The study found that for each federal dollar expended on this program,
$7.40 in value was realized. The analysis will be repeated for fiscal
year 1997.
gulf coast shrimp aquaculture
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Gulf Coast Shrimp Aquaculture grant.
Response. Work under this program has addressed important research
needs necessary for the development of a U.S. marine shrimp farming
industry. Studies have been conducted on growout intensification,
prevention and detection of diseases, seed production, and the
development of high health and genetically improved stocks. Performance
trials on selected stocks in various production systems have been
conducted. Seed production systems have reached commercial feasibility.
Protocols for viral detection have been improved and have led to the
development of specific pathogen free stocks of commercial importance.
A number of important viral pathogens of marine shrimp have been
identified. Researchers have responded rapidly to viral infections that
have severely impacted the U.S. shrimp farming industry. Researchers
will intensify efforts aimed at preventing new introductions of exotic
viral pathogens. In fiscal year 1997, emphasis will be placed on the
industry seed supply, disease control, environmental quality, and
production systems.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher indicates that there is
potential to enhance domestic production of marine shrimp through
aquaculture in order to reduce the annual trade deficit in marine
shrimp, which is approximately $2 billion. Research could improve the
supply of high quality seed, improve shrimp health management, and
enhance production efficiency in shrimp culture systems. The U.S. has
the opportunity to become a major exporter of shrimp seed and
broodstock, and disease control technologies, products and services.
Increased efforts are needed to prevent the introduction and spread of
a number of exotic viral pathogens of shrimp.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to increase domestic production of
marine shrimp through aquaculture. Studies have been conducted on
growout intensification, prevention and detection of diseases, seed
production, and the development of specific pathogen free stocks.
Commercially viable shrimp seed production systems have been developed.
Diagnostic techniques for a number of important viral pathogens have
been developed. High health genetically improved stocks are being
developed and evaluated under commercial production conditions.
Researchers have responded to severe disease outbreaks caused by the
introduction of exotic viral pathogens into U.S. shrimp farms. In
addition, scientists are currently developing biosecurity protocols to
prevent additional introductions of viral disease agents.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $1,050,000; fiscal year 1986, $1,236,000;
fiscal year 1987, $2,026,000; fiscal year 1988, $2,236,000; fiscal year
1989, $2,736,000; fiscal year 1990, $3,195,000; fiscal year 1991,
$3,365,000; fiscal year 1992-1993, $3,500,000 per year; fiscal year
1994, $3,290,000; fiscal year 1995, $2,852,000; fiscal year 1996,
$3,054,000; and fiscal year 1997, $3,354,000. A total of $35,394,000
has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Consortium estimates that
non-federal funding for this program approaches 50 percent of the
Federal funding for fiscal years 1991-1996. The source of non-federal
funding is primarily from state and miscellaneous sources. In-kind
contributions from the industry were not included in this estimate, but
are substantial as the program is dependent upon industry cooperation
to carry out large scale commercial trials.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work is being carried out through grants awarded to
the Oceanic Institute, Hawaii and the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory in
Mississippi. In addition, research is conducted through subcontracts at
the University of Southern Mississippi, Tufts University, the Waddell
Mariculture Center in South Carolina, the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, and the University of Arizona.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What
is the anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the original specific
research objective was 1987. The original specific objectives have been
met, however broader research goals have not been met. Researchers
anticipate that the specific research outlined in the current proposal
will be completed in fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates the progress of this program on an
annual basis. The institutions involved in this program submit a
detailed accomplishment report each year prior to the submission of the
new grant proposal. In addition, the agency conducts an in-depth on
site review of the program every three years. The 1997 review of the
program indicates that the progress during the last twelve months has
been well documented; close linkage between the research and the U.S.
shrimp farming industry has greatly enhanced the commercialization of
research findings; and the proposed research represents a logical
progression of previous work conducted under the program.
national education center for agricultural safety, iowa
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Response. CSREES has requested the college to submit a grant
proposal that has been received. The proposal is currently being
reviewed. The Northeast Iowa Community College is requesting funding
for a national center for agricultural safety education. The center
will conduct a safety training needs assessment of workers and
employees involving in production agriculture, plan, implement, and
evaluate training on safety and health issues derived from the needs
assessment, and provide hands-on training for farm accident rescue.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The National Safety Council estimated that 800
agricultural work deaths occurred in 1995. Of these deaths 55 percent
resulted from unintentional injuries suffered in farm tractor
overturns. Another 140,000 disabling injuries were recorded in 1995 in
agricultural work incidents. Many of these injuries resulted from farm
machinery entanglements, working with livestock, and highway collisions
between farm machinery and vehicles. Emergency medical services
personnel are often exposed to the same hazards as the victims they are
attempting to rescue. Emergency medical services personnel must be
prepared to deal with these hazards under stressful environmental
conditions.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of this research is to provide on-site, hands-on
training of emergency response personnel who may be called on to
respond to a wide range of agriculture related accidents and
emergencies. Participants in the short course offered by the center
would than be prepared to pass on their knowledge to others when they
return to their communities. There are no accomplishments to date.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1997 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is $300,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $1,000,000 state appropriations, and $65,802
miscellaneous in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out.
Response. Research will be conducted at the Northeast Iowa
Community College, Peosta, Illinois.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the original
objectives is September 30, 1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. There has been no evaluation of this project yet as it is
to be newly funded in 1997.
mississippi valley state university
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the project that has
been funded under the Curriculum Development and Strengthening-
Mississippi Valley State University grant.
Response. Funds were used to strengthen academic programs,
including accreditation and reaccreditation. Of the ten programs
eligible for accreditation, nine have been accredited. Assessment of
the criteria has begun for the remaining eligible program. Academic
programs have been broadened to include more agriculture-related
courses consistent with the needs of students from the Mississippi
Delta, students from other parts of the State, as well as out-of-state
students. Curriculum additions have had a positive impact on student
enrollment. Courses continue to be modified to reflect the needs of
graduates as well as employers in the Mississippi Delta, with
particular emphasis on those areas that employers have the greatest
need. The funds continue to provide enhancements related to other
program and administrative support areas that positively impact program
delivery and administration at Mississippi Valley State University.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The primary need for this project is to satisfy a local
need. The need is for strengthening university capacity and curriculum
development at Mississippi Valley State University. Degree programs in
Accounting, Mass Communications, Music and Public Administration have
been added since the 1988 plan was developed. The Criminal Justice
program has been developed into a departmental unit with social work in
order to provide for improved administration and academic counseling. A
master's program in Criminal Justice is now offered. The baccalaureate
major in chemistry and the master's program in Elementary Education
have been reinstated.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this project and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to provide funding to strengthen
the academic programs of the university. The academic programs have
been strengthened as evidenced by student recruitment, which has
improved to show a positive ratio between applications received and
students admitted. Approximately one half of the applicants are
enrolled. Increased quality of instruction and programs have benefitted
students. This is reflected in the higher graduation rate, increased
student enrollment, enriched faculty and improved community
relationship.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This program was initiated in fiscal year 1987. Grants
have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal year 1987,
$750,000; fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $625,000 per year; fiscal year
1990, $617,000; fiscal year 1991, $642,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$668,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $593,000; fiscal year 1995,
$544,000; fiscal year 1996, $583,000; and fiscal year 1997, $565,510. A
total of $6,880,510 was appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Mississippi Valley State University received State and
private funding during the period of this grant. The State figures
provided here are for enhancement funds provided in addition to the
University's standard formula generated funds. The sources and amounts
are as listed:
SOURCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year State Private Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987............................................................ 0 $168,640 $168,640
1988............................................................ 0 186,036 186,036
1989............................................................ $68,658 190,258 258,916
1990............................................................ 207,879 369,358 577,237
1991............................................................ 333,263 337,700 670,963
1992............................................................ 349,427 470,220 819,647
1993............................................................ 35,750 358,680 394,430
1994............................................................ 590,890 568,970 1,159,860
1995............................................................ 841,654 530,300 1,371,954
1996............................................................ 1,197,917 590,824 1,788,741
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. These funds are intended to strengthen programs at
Mississippi Valley State University. The program has been carried out
on the campus at Itta Bena and at off-campus sites in Anguilla and
Greenville and the Greenwood Center since the Spring Semester of 1996.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The objectives of the current grant will be completed by
September 30, 1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The program has been evaluated on an annual basis by the
agency. The annual progress report for fiscal year 1996 revealed steady
progress in the academic programs. For example, the Social Work
Department had significant positive changes in the quantity and quality
of the faculty. The Business Department offered a component dealing
with Agricultural land lease in the business law classes and the other
classes had topics on input and output analysis, agricultural
stimulations and initial farm planning.
pm-10 study, california and washington
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the PM-10 study, California and Washington research
grant.
Response. The research on PM-10 is being conducted by scientists at
the University of California-Davis and Washington State University. The
California program has focused on developing and refining methods to
accurately measure and detect the sources of PM-10 emissions from
various agricultural practices, and to investigate alternative
practices for reducing potential air pollution on susceptible
California crops and soils. In addition, the California project is also
measuring PM-2.5 and even more refined size distributions, as well as
identifying the constituents in all emissions samples in order to
better characterize the size distribution and possible sources of the
emissions. The Washington State University scientists are using refined
instruments on field sites to measure and predict the effects of wind
erosion and agricultural practices in the Columbia River Basin region
on PM-10 emissions, with the assistance of a portable wind tunnel.
Alternative cropping systems, tillage practices, rotations, and weed
control practices are being developed and compared for control of PM-10
emission pollution under Columbia River Basin conditions.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes there has been growing
national concern over the potential health and safety aspects of air
pollution from dusts and suspended particulate matter, resulting in
passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act which requires the monitoring and
control of such pollution. Because of particular problems from PM-10
emission in the arid regions of the Western U.S., more accurate
information is needed on the role of agricultural operations in
intensively cultivated soils in California and the Columbia River
Basin, as sources of PM-10 pollution, in order to assist growers to
develop alternative agricultural management practices to control PM-10
emissions.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goals of this research were to measure the
PM-10 emission rates from significant crop and tillage practices, to
determine the source of PM-10 emissions on soils in agricultural
regions of southern California and the Columbia River Basin in the
Pacific Northwest, and to explore cost-effective alternative
agricultural practices to control these emissions. The third year of
field measurements are being completed on PM-10 emissions on production
practices on almonds, figs, walnuts, wheat, and from dairy farms and
feedlots in California, and on a number of agricultural practices in
the rainfed and dryland croplands in the Columbia River Basin.
Susceptible climatic and soil conditions and tillage and cropping
practices have been identified and are being used to develop prediction
tools to assist growers to adopt alternative practices to reduce
potential air pollution by PM-10 particulate emissions. Measurements
continue to be taken in these areas. In addition, preliminary efforts
are underway to collect ammonia samples. This is important because the
peaks in PM-10 emissions in California occur in December and January.
Plans have also been developed to study the impacts of land preparation
techniques on emissions.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in March 1994. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $940,000; fiscal year 1995,
$815,000; and for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $873,000 per year. A
total of $3,501,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The program is matched by State funds in the form of
salaries, benefits, and operating costs.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. This work is being directed by participating scientists
at the University of California-Davis, and at the Washington State
University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date of the original
objectives of this project is 2000. The first four objectives of the
project on soil particle characterization are nearing completion. The
objectives on field control will continue. Quarterly reports on the
entire project to date are available.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency's Program Manager annually reviews the
research progress reports and proposed new research, and attends the
annual meetings of the program to assess progress. The program is also
evaluated each year by technical, administrative, and agency personnel.
Progress is reported at research review meetings three times a year.
Printed reports are available from each meeting. Grower and public
advisory committees are consulted for input on research progress and
objectives.
rural partnerships, nebraska
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Center for Rural Studies grant.
Response. The Rural Partnership Project is a comprehensive effort
to transform the way that Federal, State, and local institutions
deliver education and services to rural constituents. It is designed to
address the issues of mandates; community strategic planning and
project implementation, impact of devolution on local governments;
profiling of rural constituents as to challenges, gaps in services, and
opportunities; impact modeling; and sustaining development
organizations.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researchers believe delivery and evaluation
of programming delivered by Federal agencies is undergoing significant
transitions. Research needs to direct the most effective and efficient
means of program delivery and impact. This project is designed to
provide insights and experience in alternative delivery formats in
conjunction with partners at local, state, regional, and federal
levels.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this research was to provide
guidance in the delivery of information, technical assistance, strategy
related to rural economic development. Nebraska has transformed many of
its education and service delivery formats based on this applied
research activity. This project received Vice-President Gore's ``Hammer
Award'' in December 1996.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year
1996 and the appropriation for FY 1996 and FY 1997 was $250,000. A
total of $500,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Non-federal funds were limited to staff and researcher
support.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of
Nebraska.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. This is an on-going research activity. The project which
was begun in 1996 is now demonstrating early impacts of restructured
delivery and implementation approaches for programs. The existing
project is scheduled for completion September 30, 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates merit of research proposals as
submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been conducted.
water quality--illinois
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the water quality program grant.
Response. The Illinois Groundwater Consortium grew out of a FY 1990
appropriation of $500,000 to Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
to focus on the short- and long-term effects of agricultural chemical
contamination on the environment, the groundwater, and ultimately,
human health and welfare. As a result of this appropriation, the
University joined forces with the Illinois State Geological Survey,
Illinois State Water Survey, University of Illinois Cooperative
Extension Service, and the University of Illinois Agricultural
Experiment Station to create the Illinois Groundwater Consortium. The
Consortium's primary mission, then and now, is to effectively work
toward providing a scientifically-valid basis upon which meaningful
agricultural chemical management and regulatory decisions can be based.
The Consortium has worked to address the concerns of the agricultural
and agrichemical industries as well as the valid concerns of the
agencies charged with protection of environmental quality. Examples of
topics currently under study include:
1. Flood-Induced Loading of Agricultural Chemicals to Public Water
Supply Wells in Selected Reaches of the Illinois River
2. Development of a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem-
Based Management of Floodplains Along the Mississippi River
3. The Impact of Flooding on the Water Quality of an Alluvial
Aquifer at Henry, Illinois: First-Year Progress
4. Conservation Compliance and Agricultural Producers in the Corn
Belt: Implications for Strategic Planning and Policy Implementation
5. Transport and Fate of Agrichemicals in an Alluvial Aquifer
During Normal and Flood Conditions: A Preliminary Study
6. Nitrogen Dynamics of Agricultural Watersheds in Central Illinois
7. Assessing the Reliability and Stability of Policies to Reduce
Agricultural Chemicals in Public Water Supplies
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that, as the Consortium
enters its seventh year, the FY 1997 appropriation is targeted to
research pertaining to the impacts, recovery, and remediation of the
Midwestern region after flooding. The 1993 and 1995 flooding of the
Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois Rivers, and their tributaries,
created devastating effects on the farm lands, communities, and natural
resources of the area. These effects have major implications for
agricultural practices, water quality, and public policy decisions.
This natural catastrophe has resulted in a need for further studies
examining the impact of the flooding on surface/groundwater, soils and
their rehabilitation, biodiversity, and on economic and public policy
in the region. In addition, there is the need to disseminate results to
the public to enable the Consortium findings to be beneficial in the
near term to those needing the information. To facilitate this work,
the Consortium expanded its participant institutions in 1995 to include
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. Southern Illinois
University at Edwardsville's strategic location in the heart of the
flood damage area, as well as its qualified research scientists who
work in the Consortium's high priority research areas, will strengthen
the capabilities of the Consortium. The highest priorities of the
Consortium is the funding of research upon which public policymakers
working on land use or groundwater protection issues in flood plain
areas can base decisions, and the broad dissemination of this
information.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The Illinois Groundwater Consortium was established to
coordinate and support research on agricultural chemicals in Illinois
groundwaters. The research team has accomplished an improved
understanding of the fate and movement of agricultural chemicals under
Illinois crop production conditions. A publication supported by the
Consortium entitled, ``Buried Treasure: 50 Ways Farmers Can Protect
Their Groundwater,'' has received widespread acceptance and use for lay
audiences.
The Illinois Groundwater Consortium has accomplished a major step
toward coordination and exchange of information/research results
relating to groundwaters in Illinois. The Groundwater Bulletin reports
research results from the Consortium. The Bulletin reports on atrazine
studies, nitrogen management, farming practices for more efficient
chemical use, geological impacts and policy options to safeguard
groundwaters.
The Consortium investigators took an active role in monitoring and
investigating herbicide, pesticide and coliform impacts during and
after the Mississippi River Flood of 1993. The research continues today
on the long-term impacts of flooding and management of the affected
areas. The findings from this study will be useful in restoring the
flooded cropland to full productivity and in establishing a base upon
which policy management decisions can be made.
The Consortium annually publishes a proceedings of its annual
conference. The 1996 Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference
contains 320 pages of research results. The Consortium represents an
exceptionally productive cooperative effort involving several
universities and agencies.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Research grants have been awarded from funds appropriated
as follows: fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal year 1991, $600,000; and
fiscal years 1992-1993, $750,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $666,000;
fiscal year 1995, $460,000; and fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $492,000. A
total of $4,704,000 has been appropriated.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $255,891 state appropriations in 1991; $447,237 state
appropriations in 1992; $644,054 state appropriations in 1993; and
$623,124 state appropriations in 1994. Non-federal and state funds for
1995 and 1996 have exceeded the federal funds.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work is being carried out by the Illinois Groundwater
Consortium and coordinated by the Carbondale campus of Southern
Illinois University. The research is being conducted by staff at the
University of Illinois, Southern Illinois University, the Illinois
State Geological Survey and the Illinois Water Survey at locations
across the State.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The project was planned as a five-year study of the
impacts and recovery of flooding in the Midwest. In the original
proposal and subsequent proposals, we identified both short-term
objectives which are project goals that could be accomplished within
one to two years and long-term objectives which are project goals that
could be accomplished within two to five years. In calendar year 1996,
we completed two years of studies involving 26 projects, and in
calendar year 1997, we will begin eight new projects. These projects
are spread across areas identified as high priority, including studies
of flood impacts on soil productivity and remediation, movement of
chemicals in water and soils, bacteria and microbial life, plants and
aquatic life, and on public policy impact. Progress in meeting short-
term and long-term objectives has been excellent. The most complex task
is coordinating research projects on flood issues involving multiple
issues, such as biological, social, economic and political issues,
where effective solutions await the expansion of research databases. It
is anticipated that the projects will be completed in the year 2000.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. From its beginning, the projects funded through the
Illinois Groundwater Consortium involve reviews by at least three
faculty/researchers drawn from 27 different universities, state and
federal labs and surveys, USDA research laboratories, and other
research centers. This review system enables the IGC Advisory Committee
to select projects with scientific merit from the group of proposals
submitted for funding consideration. The titles, principal
investigators names and affiliations, and budgets are submitted to USDA
for review along with the IGC proposals for funding.
water quality--north dakota
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the water quality program grant.
Response. The overall objective of the research is to develop an
understanding of the occurrence, transport and fate of agricultural
chemicals found in representative field settings in the Northern Great
Plains region of the United States. The ultimate goal is to provide a
scientifically valid basis for management and regulation of these
chemicals. This past year, the scope of the program was expanded to
include water management issues in the Red River of the North drainage
basin. The Red River Water Management Consortium, a partnership between
public and private sectors, was established to address critical water
quality and quantity issues in an area where agriculture is the
predominant industry. A major objective of the Consortium program is to
utilize results from the initial phases of this research program to
find economical, practical, and timely technological solutions to water
supply and water quality problems. By providing co-funding for the
program. Red River Water Management Consortium members become active
stakeholders in the research. This partnership ensures the practicality
of the research performed and provides a model for the wise stewardship
of water resources in other drainage basins in the United States.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researcher believes that the nation needs a
scientifically valid basis upon which meaningful agricultural chemical
management and regulatory decisions can be made. Chemicals in
groundwater present both a public health problem and an environmental
quality problem of significant short-term and long-term importance on a
local, regional and national scale. In addition, the principal
researcher has established a water management consortium consisting of
industry, municipalities, and other entities in partnership with state
and Federal governments as a mechanism for transferring the results of
this research program to the public.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the research program was to
understand the occurrence, transport, and fate of agricultural
chemicals in representative field settings in the northern Great Plains
region so that scientifically valid decisions could be made for their
management and regulation. Work on five of the seven sites originally
instrumented under this program has been completed. Research at the two
remaining sites is directed toward answering questions that have arisen
during the course of this research program, specifically to determine
the long-term trends in nitrate concentrations in a surficial aquifer
under irrigated agriculture and to determine the source and trends for
sulfate in a similar setting.
Results from this program have been reported in journals,
conference proceedings, and through presentations at national, state,
and local meetings. To date, more than 40 presentations or publications
have been made. In addition, two doctoral dissertations and one
master's thesis have resulted from this program. Examples of important
results have obtained from this research include the following:
1. An understanding of agricultural chemical occurrence in
groundwater as determined by physical, chemical, and biological
processes, transport mechanisms, management practices, and climatic
factors.
2. Nitrate contamination of groundwater in the northern Great
Plains region of the United States is of even greater concern than
pesticide contamination.
3. Biological denitrification is an extremely important process
that determines the occurrence and distribution of nitrate and sulfate
in aquifers in the northern Great Plains region.
4. Preferential flow mechanisms control the movement of water and
contaminants in glaciated settings. Widely used flow models that do not
account for preferential flow can severely underestimate the travel
time and depth of contaminants.
5. Transport of pesticides on airborne particulate matter may
present a major health threat and is an extremely important and poorly
understood mechanism for the movement of pesticides to groundwater
recharge areas.
Finally, the researchers have established the Red River Water
Management Consortium as a mechanism for transferring the results of
the initial research to vested stakeholders in the region and to the
general public in order to address water quantity and quality problems
resulting from agricultural practices and agricultural development.
Sustainable agricultural development throughout the United States must
rely on a far better understanding of our water resources and the
application of new water management technologies to address changes in
the agriculture industry.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. In 1989, $1.0 million was appropriated under the ground
water research program. Beginning in 1990, funds have been earmarked
under the Direct Federal Administration program. Work supported by this
grant was initiated in fiscal year 1990 with an appropriation of
$987,000. Subsequent appropriations have been $750,000 in fiscal year
1991, $500,000 per year in fiscal years 1992-1993; $470,000 in 1994;
$407,000 in fiscal year 1995; and $436,000 in fiscal years 1996 and
1997. A total of $5,486,000 has been appropriated for this water
quality research program.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Red River Water Management Consortium members provide
cofunding to support their participation in the program. Cofunding
provided by Red River Water Management Consortium members for fiscal
year 1996 totaled $59,700. Interest in this program is growing, and it
is anticipated that at least $80,000 in cost- share will be obtained
during the 1997 fiscal year through membership fees. These funds are
provided directly to the program and do not include in-kind costs
incurred by the participants. In-kind costs incurred by the
participants are estimated to be several hundred thousand dollars,
although this estimate cannot be verified at this time.
Field activities to determine the long-term trends of nitrate and
sulfate and to determine the source of sulfate are being conducted in
cooperation with the North Dakota State Water Commission. Water samples
collected at the Elk Valley field site are being analyzed at the North
Dakota State Water Commission laboratory. For this 3-year effort, 1996-
1998, they have estimated a cash-equivalent funding in the amount of
$33,660. In addition, the North Dakota State Water Commission will
conduct field sampling for the Energy and Environmental Research Center
in the summer of 1997 to investigate the source of sulfate found in
groundwater in the Elk Valley aquifer. They have estimated the cash
equivalent cost of these services to be approximately $12,000.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of North
Dakota through its Energy and Environmental Research Center and at
field sites in North Dakota and Montana. In addition, a portion of the
pesticide research was conducted at North Dakota State University.
Cooperative efforts have resulted in work also being performed at
cooperative institution locations such as, University of Waterloo,
Victoria University, University of Montana, the Red River Resource
Conservation and Development Council offices, and the North Dakota
State Water Commission.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project, specifically the field related research, was
fall 1995. This research has been completed and the sites have been
decommissioned, with the exception of those relating to long-term
nitrate and sulfate monitoring and analysis. Work on nitrate and
sulfate trends and occurrence such as activities resulting from initial
findings of this research program, is scheduled for completion in 1999.
The Red River Water Management Consortium was established in 1996 as a
mechanism for transferring the information derived from this research
program to the technical community and to the public for use in
addressing water quality and quantity issues relating to agriculture
and agricultural development. It is anticipated that Red River Water
Management Consortium activities will continue for several years in
order to meet the objectives as defined by the non-federal sponsors and
the agency.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The last agency evaluation of this project was conducted
in September 1996. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Project
Officer, Dr. Maurice Horton, attended a meeting of the Red River Water
Management Consortium to evaluate and determine the status of this
effort, which is currently the focus of research program activities.
Dr. Horton was impressed with the progress made by the Red River Water
Management Consortium during its first year and believes this program
is an excellent example of how federal and state agencies, research and
academic institutions, private industry, and the general public can
work together to solve problems in an economic manner to benefit
people, communities, and the nation.
beef improvement--arkansas
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded as the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program.
Response. The Arkansas Beef Improvement Program utilizes beef
cattle farms to demonstrate cost-effective management practices. An
Arkansas Beef Improvement Program Executive Committee provides overall
direction for the program. A second aspect of the Arkansas Beef
Improvement Program is to inform all Arkansas cattle producers of the
knowledge gained from the program.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Response. The project addresses primarily local needs by setting
goals, evaluating resources and selecting the management practices that
will help the cattle producer achieve those goals in the decision-
making process.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the Arkansas Beef Improvement
Program was to enhance the profitability and efficiency of Arkansas
cattle producers.
Accomplishments to date include the establishment of demonstration
farms, collection of benchmark data including soil tests, production
information, forage analyses and budgets, and renovation of pastures to
increase grazing capacity. Identification of mineral deficiencies in
beef cattle have been detected and corrected through proper
supplementation and ration balancing. Three of the ten farms averaged a
32 percent increase in pounds of beef sold per animal unit. Various
management changes including parasite control and forage/pasture
management have been instituted. Use of a cow-calf enterprise budget
has helped the producers identify both efficient and inefficient
management practices and take corrective actions. Additional
Accomplishments for the Beef Improvement Program:
Increased the net calf crop percentage from 85.6% to 96.0%--an
increase of 10.4%.
Supplemental feed costs decreased by $23.93 per animal resulting in
a total farm saving of approximately $3,000.
205-day adjusted weaning weights have increased 7.6%--from 478 to
514 pounds.
Preweaning average daily gain has increased 7.5%--from 1.87 pounds
to 2.01 pounds.
Weaning weight efficiency increased 5.1%--from 45.4% to 47.7%.
Production costs decreased 36.9%, with the break-even cost per
pound of beef sold decreasing from $.60 to $.50.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the program been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. $184,000 has been devoted to this project from fiscal
year 1993 through 1996 for a total of $736,000. In fiscal year 1997,
$197,000 has been appropriated for this project for a total funding
amount of $933,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. $95,000 has been provided by the state of Arkansas.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. Ten Arkansas demonstration farms were selected, one in
each of ten counties, to reflect the different types of cattle
operations and cattle producers in the area. Farm sizes ranged from 140
to 920 acres with an average of 360 and herd sizes ranged from 20 to
170 head, averaging 66 head per farm.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The Arkansas project started with 6 demonstration farms
in 1992 and added 4 more farms in 1993. When the farms were selected,
it was agreed the Extension team would work with the Arkansas cattle
producers for 5 years. Therefore, the first 6 demonstration farms
completed the program at the end of 1996, and remaining 4 farms will
complete the program at the end of 1997. Data from the final year will
be collected and summarized for evaluation. The objective of the
Arkansas program was to demonstrate cost-effective management
practices. The Arkansas Beef Improvement Program has been very
successful with achieving its objectives.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. A CSREES review of the project is conducted annually. The
1996 review noted the project is taking a sound approach to improving
beef production efficiency and profitability in Arkansas. The review
complimented the approach by the project to disseminate the results
widely through publications and educational programs for the benefit of
other producers in Arkansas and beyond.
delta teachers academy
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded under the Delta Teachers Academy project.
Response. The Delta Teachers Academy, which operates out of offices
located in New Orleans, Louisiana, is conducted by the organization
known as the National Faculty, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. It
should be noted that our State Extension partners are not involved in
this project. The National Faculty Delta Teachers Academy was launched
in 1992 with a pilot grant of $500,000 from the United States
Department of Education. The United States Department of Agriculture's
funding for the project began in 1994. The Delta Teachers Academy
project is providing approximately 645 teachers at 40 sites throughout
the seven Lower Mississippi Delta states with development opportunities
by teaming them with university scholars in on-site sessions and
residential summer institutes. The subjects focused on during these
training opportunities are English, geography, history, mathematics,
and science.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
project?
Response. According to the grant recipient, the 219-county area
comprising the Lower Mississippi Delta region has been cited in reports
by the Educational Testing Service and the National Center for
Education Statistics as notably lagging in student performance in core
academic areas. In 1989, Volunteers in Service to America characterized
the area as the poorest region in the country. According to the
Southern Regional Education Board, at least five of the Delta states
have 20 percent or more of their school-age populations in poverty,
with Mississippi topping the list at 34 percent. In its report to
Congress in 1990, the Delta Development Commission cited serious
educational problems including poor student performance in core content
areas, demoralized teachers with little or no opportunity for academic
development, and region-wide difficulty in recruiting and retaining
qualified teachers. The Commission also stressed the links between
these problems and the pervasive poverty and depressed economic
conditions that characterize much of the seven state Delta region. The
Commission's report also cited that 75 percent of the region's
workforce lacks the basic reading skills necessary for technical
training and specifically cites the need for improved teacher training
as one means for breaking the cycle of poverty and economic non-
competitiveness.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of the program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original and continuing goal of the project is to
address the problem of insufficient professional development
opportunities for the elementary and secondary teachers of the seven-
state region. The Academy project has focused on the core subjects of
English, geography, history, mathematics, and science. Humanities,
language arts, social studies, reading, civics, and interdisciplinary
subjects are also covered by some sites. The Delta Teachers Academy
began by offering educational development activities for 100 teachers
from approximately 50 rural districts at 10 sites. Training has now
been expanded to include 645 teachers at 40 sites across the entire
seven-state region. The project has improved teacher recruitment and
retention in the region.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. A total of 13,661 million dollars has been appropriated
to the Department of Agriculture for this project, including 2 million
dollars in fiscal year 1994, 3.935 million dollars in fiscal year 1995,
3.876 million dollars in fiscal year 1996, and 3.850 million dollars in
fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. There are no non-federal funds identified for this
project.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The Delta Teachers Academy project is coordinated out of
The National Faculty's Southern Region office in New Orleans,
Louisiana. The project is being conducted at 40 sites selected from
within the seven-state Lower Mississippi Delta region including the
states of Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original objective was to provide three full years of
training to each faculty term established by the Delta Teacher Academy
program. Training consists of four two-day academic sessions and one
two-week summer institute for each team. This objective has been met
for the original 24 faculty teams first funded under the Fiscal Year
1994 Department of Agriculture grant. The 15 additional teams
established in 1995 have received two years of in-service training, and
the one new team established in Fiscal Year 1996 has received one year
of training. By the end of the current Fiscal Year 1997 grant, 39 of
the 40 faculty teams established by the Delta Teachers Academy will
have met the original objective of the program. Objectives for the
Fiscal Year 1997 grant include completing training for the 240 teachers
at the 16 sites established during 1995 and 1996 and expanding
professional development activities to an additional 340 teachers at 19
new sites throughout the seven-state Delta region. Additional
objectives include sustaining professional development activities for
the 350 teachers at 27 former Delta Teachers Academy sites through a
new Academy Fellow Program and cultivating 15 to 20 potential sites for
establishing new programs in Fiscal Year 1998. The anticipated
completion date for any new program sites established in Fiscal Year
1997 would be at the end of the year 2000.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. An assessment of the short-term impact of the Delta
Teachers Academy by Westat, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland was completed
in May 1995. Westat's study found that the vast majority of
participants reported that the Academy had met their personal and
professional needs by renewing their enthusiasm for teaching, improving
their self-confidence, increasing their sense of professionalism,
improving their knowledge of specific content areas, enhancing their
teaching methods, and providing opportunities to interact with peers.
The study also provided considerable evidence that teachers are
applying what they have learned from the Academy in their own
classrooms. For example:
86 percent said Academy activities had enhanced their knowledge of
the academic subjects they teach;
88 percent said the Academy had helped them develop new teaching
skills and strategies;
95 percent said they were now better equipped to pursue further
professional development;
88 percent said the Academy had prepared them to assume leadership
roles in their schools;
89 percent noted changes in their students' work habits, attitudes,
aspirations, and achievements.
A United States General Accounting Office review of the Academy's
programs was also conducted in Fiscal Year 1995. The General Accounting
Office report--GAO/RCED-95-208 included summary statistics on over
1,000 teacher evaluations of Academy sessions as well as the General
Accounting Office's own survey of participants. The General Accounting
Office found that on average, participants reported that the Academy
was more effective than any other teacher development program they had
participated in, was very effective in renewing or enhancing knowledge
in one or more academic subjects, and was generally effective in
enhancing the teaching skills and strategies required for teaching
challenging academic content.
In addition, a site visit of the Delta Teachers Academy offices in
New Orleans, Louisiana and of the National Faculty's Summer Institute
at Tulane University was conducted by the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service's National Program Leader for Higher
Education and Evaluation, during July 1996. The site visit confirmed
that participating teachers are very enthusiastic about the Delta
Teachers Academy program, that the instruction provided by The National
Faculty's university scholars is on target and appropriate to the K-12
teachers' needs, and that the facilities are very well suited to
program requirements. The site visit further confirmed that the Delta
Teachers Academy has strengthened the participating teachers' ability
to teach by improving their content knowledge base, helped them become
leaders of other teachers by requiring them to conduct staff
development back at their home schools, and had a positive impact on
student learning. School superintendents report greater student
enthusiasm, more homework, and higher test scores for students whose
teachers were in the Delta Teachers Academy program.
extension specialist, arkansas
(extension farm management education project)
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded under the ``Extension Farm Management Education Project.''
Response. The Federal funds support a small/family farm management
and marketing education program, headquartered at the South Central
Family Farm Research Center, a USDA-ARS facility in Booneville,
Arkansas.
The program takes research generated at the Center and adapts it to
management and marketing education programs to meet the needs of small
family farmers and provides support to county and state extension
personnel who actually deliver these programs.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Response. According to the grant recipients, nearly three fourths
of all U.S. farms have gross sales less than $50,000. In the 10 state
area served by the Booneville Center this percentage is even higher.
Both the research and extension programs are targeted to the needs of
this small, family farm audience. The eight specific objectives of this
project cover a variety of management and marketing needs of smaller
farm operators to help them improve family income through improved
management and marketing skills.
Mr. Skeen. What is the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the program was to develop a small/
family farm management and marketing education program based on the
research program of the Booneville Research Center, to which considers
the limitations and potentials faced by small family farmers as they
decided how to improve farm efficiency and technology use, how to
minimize risk under severe capital constraints, and how to combine farm
enterprises on limited acreage to best utilize available family labor
while minimizing capital investment.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This project began in fiscal year 1992 with an
appropriation of $92,000. Subsequent federal funds were $92,000 in
fiscal year 1993; $92,000 in fiscal year 1994; $92,000 in fiscal year
1995; $91,080 in fiscal year 1996 and $91,080 in fiscal year 1997.
Appropriations to date total $550,160.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service has provided
the following state funds: $59,040 in fiscal year 1992; $55,680 in
fiscal year 1993; $55,446 in fiscal year 1994; $55,446 in fiscal year
1995; $54,446 in fiscal year 1996; and $46,364 in fiscal year 1997.
Nonfederal funds provided to date amount to $324,422.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The Arkansas Extension Farm Management Program is
headquartered in Booneville, Arkansas, and serves the 10 south central
states included in the service area of the ARS South Central Family
Farm Research Center.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1992 was for a 12 month period;
however the emphasis of the program has shifted as the educational
needs of the target audience and as the research program of the Center
have changed. During the current fiscal year, program emphasis is on
provision of information about alternative farm enterprises and
updating farm management application software. The current phase of the
program runs through February of 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. CSREES performed a merit review of this program in
January 1997 as we reviewed the proposal for 1997. The review concluded
the project has been successful in meeting the specific educational
needs of an underserved clientele group. The review also pointed out
this program serves as an excellent example of cross-agency, and
public-private, coordination and cooperation.
extension specialist, mississippi
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded as the Basic Weather Service for Research and Extension
Project.
Response. The Basic Weather Service and Extension project is a two
phase program. The first year funding will be used to gather and
disseminate critical agricultural weather data for producers and
researchers in Mississippi and surrounding states.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Response. The grant proposal states that the Ag Weather Service
facility was closed recently at Stoneville, Mississippi. This action
has created a void in the availability of and access to critical
weather data that producers and researchers use to make management
decisions and formulate research projects, respectively.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. This is a first year project and the goal is to collect,
maintain, and disseminate weather information for producers and
researchers in Mississippi and surrounding states.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the program been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through 1997?
Response. This is a new program which is being planned and
initiated this year. The first year appropriation is $50,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The State of Mississippi through the Mississippi
Cooperative Extension Service and Delta Research & Extension Center is
providing $41,350 in state appropriated funds to support this project
in 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The project will be conducted at the Delta Research &
Extension Center in Stoneville, Mississippi.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of the additional or related
objectives?
Response. This project is expected to continue into a Phase II
program.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This is a new project being initiated this fiscal year
and for this reason no evaluation has been conducted yet.
income enhancement demonstration, ohio
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded under the ``Income Enhancement Demonstration Project for
Northwest Ohio.''
Response. The Federal funds support the Agricultural Business
Enhancement Center which plays a major role in the development of the
agricultural sector of Northwest Ohio. The Center provides a variety of
management training programs, helps farms and other agribusinesses
develop comprehensive business plans, and facilitates business
networking.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
research, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Response. This grant is targeted to local Northwest Ohio needs.
Farmers and other agribusiness firms must be able to adapt to a large
number of major changes affecting the entire food system from the
farmer to the consumer. These include changes in farm programs,
globalization of markets, new technologies, information systems,
consumers' concerns for food safety and nutrition, and society's
concern for protecting the environment. Individuals, families, firms
and communities in northwest Ohio need to understand the changes,
develop and implement effective strategies for managing change.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the project was to help people
develop new businesses and restructure and expand existing businesses
in order to enhance incomes in Northwest Ohio. Recent accomplishments
include several workshops to improve the management and marketing
capacity of local farms and agribusiness firms. At the close of a
special workshop of women in agriculture, 75 percent said their
participation would improve management of the family farm. The Center
has a major role in examining the feasibility of a new tomato
processing plant in the region. The Center continues to conduct
economic research on market opportunities, provide a variety of
management training programs, help individual farms and other
agribusinesses develop comprehensive business plans, and facilitate
networking with businesses in other regions of the United States and
around the world.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The project began in fiscal year 1991. Appropriations
have been as follows: $145,000 in fiscal year 1991; $250,000 in fiscal
years 1992 through 1995; and $246,000 in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Appropriations to date total $1,637,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The State of Ohio has appropriated the following funds:
$35,100 in fiscal year 1991; $72,368 in fiscal year 1992; $56,930 in
fiscal year 1993; $30,547 in fiscal year 1994; $49,935 in fiscal year
1995; $51,432 in fiscal year 1996; and $48,664 in fiscal year 1997.
Non-federal funding provided to date totals $344,976.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The Agricultural Business Enhancement Center is located
in Bowling Green, Ohio and serves eight counties in the Toledo
Metropolitan Area. Project leadership and data analysis is being
provided by the Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1991 was for a period of 12
months. The current phase of the program will be completed in September
1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in January
1997 as it evaluated the project proposal for 1997, and concluded that
it plays a major role in enhancing the competitiveness of the
agricultural sector in eight counties of Northwest Ohio and that it has
been effective in stimulating economic development in that area.
integrated cow/calf management--iowa
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded as ``CHIPS: Cow-Calf Integrated Resource Management
Program.''
Response. CHIPS is an integrated cow-calf resource management (IRM)
program which originally targeted an eleven county area in southeast
Iowa. The intent of the program is to improve the area's rural economy
by maximizing the profit potential of individual livestock operations.
The CHIPS concept was also initiated to promote the development of
forage systems which utilize highly erodible land (HEL), including land
to be released in the CRP program. The geographical area where CHIPS
services are offered systematically expanded to over 20 southeast and
south central Iowa counties through fiscal year 1995. Expansion of the
CHIPS program in area covered, services offered, and cooperator numbers
continued to increase in 1996, with technical support expanding to an
additional 14 counties in east central and southwest Iowa.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Response. Southeast Iowa contains extensive areas of marginal lands
which are highly erosive (HEL) and should not be intensively farmed
with row crops. These rolling hills are capable of producing high
quality forages and are supportive to the cattle industry. 1996 marks
the beginning of the release of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
contracts--with thousands of these acres categorized as HEL. CHIPS is
instrumental in assisting producers as sound management decisions are
finalized regarding these CRP acres. CHIPS's long-term sustainable
approach supports cow-calf production on this marginal ground and
provides one-on-one assistance as economic and production decisions are
made. The importance of the CHIPS program is highlighted by the current
depressed economic state of the cow-calf industry. Negative financial
returns have been a reality over the past 18 months and most economists
predict this financial environment will continue in 1998.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The overall goal of CHIPS is to have a positive effect on
the area's economy by improving the long-term profit potential of the
local cattle industry. To address this broad project goal, CHIPS has
set forth the following objectives:
Improve profit potential of cooperator farms.
Identify issues and trends in management data.
Raise the awareness and understanding of over 2,000 agricultural
producers in southeast Iowa about cow-calf production on highly erosive
land and the integrated resource management concept.
Provide over 130 producers with intensive technical assistance to
develop goals and individualized farm recommendations, including
management areas such as pasture and forage production, rations,
utilization of resources, record systems, and government farm program
compliance. During 1997, the number of operations served is expected to
increase to approximately 200.
Help producers develop management skills to improve efficiency and
reduce costs of production as CHIPS recommendations are implemented.
Over 130 cooperators, involving approximately 11,000 beef cows, are
currently enrolled and participating in the CHIPS program. Four full-
time technicians and one part-time specialist have conducted over 600
farm/office consultations during FY 96 to develop specific on-the-farm
recommendations and assist with the problem solving and decisionmaking
process. These contacts involved a wide variety of technical
assistance, with primary emphasis on nutrition, cost-effective ration
development, genetic evaluation, value added practices, and cow
production concerns. Over 60 cooperators have incorporated the Cow Herd
Appraisal of Performance Software (CHAPS) and Standardized Performance
Analysis (SPA) programs in their operations. During FY 96, 3000 head of
beef animals were permanently identified to facilitate record and data
collection. More than 7500 cattle were weighed and monitored to
evaluate performance and production levels. Over 250 forage samples
were collected and analyzed, with the information being utilized in
over 300 individualized ration recommendations. Selected management
recommendations are highlighted by CHIPS technicians on a monthly
basis. These financial and/or performance impacts are summarized in a
report prepared and distributed quarterly.
Two networking projects are being developed through the efforts of
the staff involved with the CHIPS program. A CHIPS Heifer Development
Program was initiated in November, 1996, coordinating the management of
over 200 breeding heifers from 10 CHIPS cooperators. The goal of this
program is (1) to incorporate technological advances in the area of
heifer development, and (2) to improve the genetic base of these ten
operations through the use of artificial insemination, genetic
evaluations, and nutritional management. A CHIPS Feedlot Program is
also being developed which will provide cooperators, regardless of the
size of the operation, and opportunity to retain ownership of their
animals from birth to market. This value-added approach will expand the
marketing opportunities for individual cow-calf operations and improve
the profit potential for cooperators with genetically superior animals.
A state-wide bull test evaluation is also being monitored by CHIPS
personnel in conjunction with the Iowa Cattlemen's Association.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the program been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. $138,000 was approved for fiscal year 1992; $138,000 was
approved for fiscal year 1993; $276,000 for fiscal year 1994; $350,000
for fiscal year 1995; $345,000 for fiscal year 1996; and $345,000 for
fiscal year 1997. Federal funding through fiscal year 1997 totals
$1,592,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. CHIPS participants pay client fees of approximately $3.00
per cow. This fee structure is on a sliding scale which adjusts for cow
herd size. To date, approximately $60,000 has been collected from CHIPS
cooperators.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The CHIPS program is currently being operated in
southeast and south central Iowa and involves the following counties:
Van Buren, Davis, Jefferson, Wapello, Appanoose, Monroe, Mahaska,
Keokuk, Washington, Henry, Des Moines, Louisa, Wayne, Marion. Lucas and
Lee in southeast Iowa and Clarke, Decatur, Ringgold, Union, Adair,
Adams, and Taylor in the south central area. The fiscal year 96
expansion effort extends CHIPS services to the following counties in
east central and southwest Iowa: Jackson, Dubuque, Jones, Cedar.
Clinton, Scott, Linn, Johnson, Fremont, Page, Mills, Montgomery,
Pottawattamie, and Cass. With this expansion effort CHIPS is offering
program services to approximately 60% of the state's cow-calf
operations.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The CHIPS program was initially projected to address the
goals and objectives of the project in a three year time frame.
The objectives and goals of the CHIPS program will continue to be
modified to meet the needs of the cooperators and to adjust to the
rapidly changing cattle industry. The level of technical assistance and
method of program delivery will require adaptation to meet the ``new''
objectives which emerge. Expansion of value added services is an area
of increased interest by cooperators. Discussion with Precision Beef
Alliance, a value added pasture-to-plate program, is scheduled.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. A CSREES review of this project is conducted annually.
The CSREES project liaison met with the project leader during 1996 to
discuss plans for expansion of the CHIPS program. The 1996 review found
a comprehensive approach to enhancing the cow-calf industry in Iowa
with a strong educational effort in addition to hands-on assistance
with records and management decision making. The review noted
activities to make CHIPS self-supporting and to evaluate its impact on
producers.
pilot technology project, wisconsin
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded under the Wisconsin Pilot Technology Project.
Response. Primary industrial extension activity of the
Manufacturing Technology Transfer program is the delivery of technical
assistance to manufacturing companies. Executive direction in
determining the assistance required will be provided by the Stout
Technology Transfer Institute with direct consultation and long-term
in-plant assistance delivered primarily through the efforts of
university Project Managers and Co-op students. Direct assistance may
be delivered through staff of the University of Wisconsin System (both
two- and four-year institutions, and Extension services); the Wisconsin
Technical College System; secondary schools; the private sector
(professional societies, and private consultants, or attendance at
state or national seminars. The projects also draws on many other state
resources to add expertise and capacity to network facilitation and in-
plant extension activities.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. American's manufacturers continue to face tremendous
global competition. There are enormous pressures to improve the quality
of products; reduce the time consumed to bring new products to market;
and there remains an ever increasing demand to reduce the cost of
products. Currently there is a strong movement in manufacturing to use
speed-to-market combined with new product introduction as a tool to
obtain a competitive advantage. While high quality and cost
efficiencies continue to be mandatory commitments for today's
manufacturers, great value is now being placed on speed-to-market.
Large companies are not the only ones influenced by these trends. Small
and medium-size manufacturers often supply larger firms. Hence, they
must be able to quickly process large amounts of information and solve
complex problems.
Mr. Skeen. What is the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The Manufacturing Technology Transfer program's principal
objective is the development of a competitive, secure manufacturing
base through the mechanism of industrial extension. The program
principally targets small and medium size manufacturers in rural
Wisconsin. This funding will: (1) continue to provide valuable
industrial extension service to the target audience; (2) support the
continued empirical development of an industrial extension model, and
(3) investigate the use of super computer technologies to support
global competitiveness of manufacturers. Specific accomplishments have
been to:
a. Perform plan evaluations.
b. Identify opportunities for productivity improvements.
c. Implement new organizational and operational methods.
d. Investigate new manufacturing technology, with focus on super
computing.
e. Establish quality assurance/total quality systems.
f. Establish ongoing training programs.
g. Deliver on-site instruction in new technologies, improve methods
and processes.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This project has been underway since FY 1992 and was
funded for $165,000 in FY 1992, FY 1993, FY 1994, FY 1995, and for
$163,000 in FY 1996 and FY 1997 a total of $986,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source of and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. No non-federal funds have been provided for this project.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work will be carried out by the University of
Wisconsin-Stout.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1992 was for a period of 12
months. However, the Manufacturing Technology Transfer Program was
developed as a continuously evolving industrial extension strategy for
serving the needs of the manufacturing community. As an ongoing
project, the Manufacturing Technology Transfer Program is measured by
success in meeting the objectives of the past five years' proposals,
including the delivery of modernization assistance and development of
an industrial extension model. The current phase of the program will be
completed in 1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. To measure the success of the project, a client
evaluation process has been developed which includes an evaluation
questionnaire. At the conclusion of interaction, each client is asked
to evaluate services by completing a survey which reflects the
program's stated goals and results are available annually. Evaluations
indicate significant forward strides in job creation, new businesses,
expanded productivity, and enhanced international competitiveness.
range policy development, new mexico
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Range Policy Development research grant.
Response. The project is collecting economic data on a statewide
basis. The data is being used to build an economic model that will
allow policymakers to better understand how local and state economies
are tied to primary industries, notably those industries using public
lands.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the local, regional, or national needs for this
research?
Response. In New Mexico and throughout the western states, local
economies are frequently tied to the use and management of public range
and forest lands. By describing how local industries provide personal
income as well as local, state, and Federal tax revenues, we may be
better prepared to estimate the impacts of proposed legislation and to
craft policies that will enhance, rather than detract, from local
economies.
Mr. Skeen. How will the results of this evaluation be used?
Response. Each New Mexico county will have a detailed input/output
model developed from state and county tax revenue data. The results of
the economic model forecasts will be shared with county decisionmakers
in public forums across the state.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This project was initiated in December 1994. It has been
funded year-to-year to accomplish annual objectives. The first tier of
objectives met in 2 years. The project objectives are being revised for
fiscal year 1997, and we anticipate another 2 years to complete the
second phase of the project in September 1998. The total appropriation
has been $570,240. However, $189,120 in 1997 funds have not yet been
awarded because we have not yet received a request from the
institution.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds to
support this project?
Response. The project budget does not indicate any non-federal
support. However, the economists working with this project have
initiated a regional research project to follow up with the model, and
the regional project includes investments from universities in seven
western states.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. According to the project coordinator, most of the
original objectives have been accomplished. The investigators are
currently collecting data to allow incorporation of other industry and
government sectors into the model. These objectives should be
accomplished in 2 years.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The proposal for continuing funding underwent merit
review by a team of CSREES National Program Staff in June 1996 and a
review of progress by the project liaison in November 1996. Both
reviews were positive and returned recommendations that the project
receive the funding earmarked for it in FY's 96 and 97.
rural center aids/std prevention, indiana
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded under the Rural Center for HIV/STD Prevention in Indiana.
Response. This program created the Rural Center for AIDS/STD
Prevention, formerly named the Rural Center for the Study and Promotion
of HIV/STD Prevention, jointly between Indiana University, Bloomington,
Indiana and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. The Center is
headquartered at Indiana University. The purposes of the Rural Center
for AIDS/STD Prevention are (1) the development and evaluation of
innovative educational material and approaches designed to reduce HIV/
STD risk behavior and incidence in rural areas, and (2) the
investigation of the social and behavioral barrier to HIV/STD
prevention, the findings from which can be applied to the creation of
prevention programming.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Response. The grant request states that many perceive that HIV/STD
is only a problem in large urban areas. However, HIV/STD are found
everywhere, including small towns and rural areas, suburbs, and large
cities. HIV/STD are becoming increasingly serious in non-urban areas.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goals of this project are (1) the development and
evaluation of innovative educational material and approaches designed
to reduce HIV/STD risk behavior and incidence in rural areas, and (2)
the investigation of the social and behavioral barrier to HIV/STD
prevention, from which findings can be applied to the creation of
prevention programming. Information has been compiled on the incidence
and costs of rural HIV/STD; educational materials have been developed
for field testing and evaluation; a national rural HIV/AIDS
videoconference has been conducted; and a newsletter established.
Accomplishments in FY 1996 included the development of computer
software and peer educational material; expansion of the Prevention
Resources Library; analysis of selected HIV/STD-related determinants of
rural adolescents, adults, and migrant farmworkers; needs assessments
of women and children with HIV; modeling of the HIV epidemic; and
caregiver/persons with AIDS/community linkages. In FY 1997, proposed
projects include assessing the health and family correlates of HIV/STD-
risk behavior, development of HIV/STD prevention education material,
modeling the effects of multiple drug therapies, and assessing the HIV
education needs of rural special education students.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This is the fourth year of funding for this program. Work
began on January 3, 1994. The fiscal year 1997 funding for this program
is $246,000. Total funds appropriated to date are as follows: $250,000
in fiscal year 1994 and 1995; and $246,000 in fiscal years 1996 and
1997 for a total amount of $992,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source of and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The source of non-federal funds for this program is state
of Indiana appropriated funds to Indiana University. The amount of non-
federal funds are $145,406 in fiscal year 1994; $83,141 fiscal year
1995; $91,979 in fiscal year 1996; and $115,166 in fiscal year 1997 for
a total non-federal funding amount of $435,692.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work is being carried out jointly in the Department
of Applied Health Science and the Center the AIDS Research, Indiana
University, Bloomington, Indiana, and the Department of Sociology,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date of the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The Center was established to provide leadership,
particularly in the Midwest, in efforts toward stopping the spread to
HIV infections and sexually transmitted diseases in rural areas since
no other such center existed. The first year's objectives were to
develop a rural AIDS education needs assessment, develop innovative
youth educational material, develop a resources center, evaluate a new
school-based curriculum, develop family intervention strategies for
decreasing adolescent risk behaviors, to assess the clinical and
psychological needs of rural women and children with HIV, assess the
needs of family caregivers for rural persons with AIDS, and examine the
financial impact of HIV/STD on rural families. Since these projects are
funded on an annual basis, the completion date for project objectives
has been the end of each fiscal year.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency receives quarterly and annual progress reports
on the project. Based on these reports, the agency has found that the
Center has consistently met its objectives in educational material
development and educational program delivery. The Center has become the
primary source of HIV, AIDS, and other STD educational materials and
programs for rural America.
rural development, oklahoma
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded under the Rural Development, Oklahoma Project.
Response. This program provides technical assistance to small
business in support of job creation. It provides evaluation of new
products and processes that may result in new industries or that may be
applied to improve existing manufacturing processes. The program has
resulted in job creation and industrial development through the
operation of business incubators, new product and process fairs
marketing assistance to rural entrepreneurs, financial assistance for
plant expansion and new business starts.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The operation of the rural incubator program that
provides a stable and nurturing environment that small businesses need
to grow into profitable concerns. These incubators consist of buildings
designed for the specific purpose of starting a new manufacturing or
technology-based company. Also small business needs access to technical
assistance, worker training, technology transfer, financial aid, and
business management assistance in order to stay competitive in domestic
and world markets.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of the program was to assist rural
business in Southeast Oklahoma to get systematic access to improved
technology, training, financial and business management assistance.
Many accomplishments have resulted including financial assistance.
Rural Enterprise, Inc., is a Certified Development Corporation for the
Small Business Administration. As result, Rural Enterprise, Inc., has
obtained financing for entrepreneurs and businesses totaling
$66,392,855. Specific Technical assistance efforts have included:
working with a company regarding different ways to cut a radius in a
board to allow a forklift to pick up pallets from the side making it a
4-way unit; working with a technology transfer center to assist a
client in the design of a muffler for air tools to provide statistical
data on descible reduction and frequency harmonics reductions; working
with a company to identify and solve an engineering problem they were
having with a new product.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Appropriations to date are follows: $433,000 in fiscal
years 1988 and 1989; $430,000 in fiscal year 1990; $431,000 in fiscal
year 1991; $300,000 in fiscal years 1992 through 1995; and $296,000 in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Appropriations total $3,519,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. No non-federal funds have been provided for this project.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work is being carried out at Rural Enterprises, Inc.,
in Durant, Oklahoma.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been meet?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1988 was for a period of 12
months. However, the objectives of Rural Enterprises, Inc., are on-
going because of the nature of the activity. The clientele is diverse
and decentralized. The engineering and management and consultation
model being pursued with individual clients results in a situation
where hundreds of problems are being pursued simultaneously and when
solved are replaced by new issues resulting from international
competition, regulations, training needs, and changeover costs. The
next phase of the program will be completed in 1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. CSREES staff responsible for project liaison have
conducted on-site visits and have formed evaluations through the
agency's merit review process. Rural Enterprises itself conducts an
ongoing evaluation process to measure the organization's effectiveness
and efficiency in accomplishing its objectives and this is documented
on a quarterly basis through our reporting system. Significant numbers
of jobs and new business have resulted from the program.
rural development, nebraska
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded under the Nebraska Rural Development Project.
Response. The Center for Rural Community Revitalization and
Development, Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service has supported an
on-going applied research/outreach effort to improve the delivery and
impact of land grant programming to small and rural communities and
businesses. The grant has allowed the institution and other State and
Federal agencies to refine the delivery and efficiency of programming
within the State of Nebraska. It has supported the development of
program partnerships and alternative means of providing technical
support to rural constituencies.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. The Center is providing cutting-edge approaches in the
development and delivery of technical assistance to rural
constituencies. Information age technology is being incorporated into
the delivery of both university and Federal/State agency programming.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal was to provide improved technical
assistance to distressed rural businesses and/or emerging businesses in
distressed communities. Through a series of 72 workshops in 67
communities over 1,341 business owners/managers were provided technical
assistance. Currently, new strategies are being developed to provide
technical assistance in a more cost efficient method.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. The project has been operating since October 1978 and
Federal appropriations through fiscal year 1993 were $1.74 million. For
fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, $400,000 per year were appropriated;
and for 1997, $386,000 was appropriated. Total funding to date is
$3,326,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. All Federal funds have been matched by an equivalent
amount of non-federal funds each year of operation through FY 1995. The
FY 1995 amount was $99,305. The non-federal support has been primarily
in the form of staff for the past two fiscal years.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. Research is being conducted at the University of
Nebraska.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original completion date was September 30, 1989. The
original objectives of the research project have been met. The
completion of additional objectives is scheduled for September 30,
1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates merit of research proposals as
submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been conducted.
rural development through tourism, new mexico
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded under the Rural Economic Development Through Tourism
(REDTT) Project in New Mexico.
Response. The Rural Economic Development Through Tourism Project is
a rural-based economic development activity to create new jobs and
sources of income in small and rural communities in a seven county area
of New Mexico. The focus of the development is on tourism and related
businesses. The program supports training, strategic planning, and
technical assistance for communities and tourism businesses.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Response. This is a pilot project to demonstrate the effective
development and implementation of training, education, and technical
assistance related to rural tourism. Tourism development is a strong
area of interest to many small and rural communities throughout the
United States.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The New Mexico Cooperative Extension was to spearhead a
comprehensive program to assist small and rural communities in
increasing economic development opportunities through tourism. A
regional task force composed of extension representatives and community
leaders from business, industry, education, and government at the
federal, state, and local levels guides the development and
implementation of effective and efficient programming to support rural
tourism development. The results of REDTT include a video, a public
relations program, an image study, a regional tourism map and guide, a
regional tourism bus package, festival planning workshops, development
of a regional agricultural tour, and development of a mini-grants
funding program.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1997?
Response. In fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996,
$230,000 was appropriated each year. For fiscal year 1997, $227,000 has
been appropriated for a total funding amount of $1,377,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. In fiscal year 1992, $38,764 of state matching funds were
provided. For fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996, $39,360 of state
funds were provided. Fiscal year 1997 funds of $39,040 are being
provided.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. Research/programming is being supported at the New Mexico
State University.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original completion date was September 30, 1993. The
original objectives of the research project have been met. The
completion of additional objectives is scheduled for March 31, 1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as
they are submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been
conducted.
rural rehabilitation, georgia
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded under the Rural Rehabilitation project in Georgia.
Response. The program has tested the feasibility of providing
satellite-based adult literacy education, in association with
vocational rehabilitation services, to handicapped adults in rural
Georgia. The program has developed curriculum, tested and adapted
technology, established student recruitment and retention strategies,
expanded to Statewide coverage, and provided successful adult literacy
education.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Response. A state task force has estimated that 25 percent of
Georgia's adult population is functionally illiterate, Illiteracy is
regarded as a form of disability in Georgia.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The original goal of this program was to prove that
distance learning can be an effective tool for reaching and teaching
functionally illiterate adults in rural areas. This program has
demonstrated that satellite-based literacy training, in cooperation
with vocational rehabilitation services, can successfully provide adult
literacy education designed to improve critical reading, writing, and
thinking skills for handicapped rural adults. The program now enrolls
about 640 students per quarter, with approximately 70 percent expected
to complete the full eight quarters of literacy education. Over the
past eight years, test scores and attendance rates of students in the
satellite-based program have shown that distance learning is an
effective delivery system for instructing low-level readers and non-
readers. Test scores and attendance rates of students in this program
have been comparable to those of students in traditional, urban
classes.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Funding for this program was initially appropriated in
fiscal year 1989, and the program has been in operation since March
1989. Through fiscal year 1997, appropriations for this program have
been as follows: $129,000 in fiscal year 1989; $256,000 in fiscal year
1990; $256,000 in fiscal year 1991; $256,000 in fiscal year 1992;
$250,000 in fiscal year 1993; $250,000 in fiscal year 1994; $250,000 in
fiscal year 1995; $246,000 in fiscal year 1996; and 246,000 in fiscal
year 1997. Funds appropriated to date total $2,139,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source of and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. The FY 1997 source of non-federal funds provided for this
program are state appropriated funds from the Georgia Department of
Adult Education. Prior years' sources also included private
contributions from the Woodruff Foundation and other local foundations.
Through FY 1997, the total amount of non-federal funds provided the
project has been $6,697,581. The breakdown by fiscal year is $164,000
in fiscal year 1988; $270,500 in fiscal year 1989; $809,675 in fiscal
year 1990; $656,765 in fiscal year 1991; $65,000 in fiscal year 1992;
$1,019,821 in fiscal year 1993; $20,000 in fiscal year 1994; $872,500
in fiscal year 1995; $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1996; and $1,319,320 in
fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The Georgia Tech Satellite Literacy Project is sponsored
and operated by four organizations: Georgia Institute of Technology's
Center for Rehabilitation Technology, the Center for Rehabilitation
Technology (CRT), Inc., Literacy Action, Inc. and the Georgia
Department of Technical and Adult Education. The program grantee is
CRT, Inc., a private, not-for-profit business advisory board to the
Center for Rehabilitation Technology, College of Architecture, Georgia
Institute of Technology, from which the literacy instruction is
provided. The 100 classes at 77 adult literacy classroom sites,
dispersed throughout the State of Georgia and one site in Virginia,
included 18 technical schools, 42 adult learning centers, 8 high,
middle or elementary schools, 3 universities, 3 libraries, 2
rehabilitation centers, and one other site.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. It was anticipated that it would take three years to
demonstrate that distance learning can be an effective tool for
reaching and teaching functionally illiterate adults in rural areas.
That original objective was met in FY 1991. Additional objectives since
FY 1991 have been to expand the outreach of the satellite based adult
literacy program to enough additional sites throughout the state of
Georgia so that all potential participants have reasonable access to
the program; to continually upgrade the quality of class programming
and the technical capacities of the system. It is anticipated that the
latest technological upgrades, expanding the capacity of the program
more than twenty-five-fold (from seventy-seven to over 2,000 downlink
sites), and six-fold increase in broadcast hours, and making materials
available as supplemental tools to all Georgia literacy classes, will
be completed by the end of the current project period, February 28,
1998.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. The agency receives annual reports on the project. Based
on these reports, the agency has found that the project has made
progress in demonstrating the feasibility of utilizing distance
learning technology and teaching methods to provide adult literacy
education programs to handicapped adults throughout the state of
Georgia. The project has been successful in applying the latest
distance education technology to both control the program cost per
participant and, most recently, to expand the availability of the
program.
technology transfer projects, oklahoma and mississippi
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the program that has
been funded under the Oklahoma and Mississippi Technology Transfer
Projects.
Response. The original work plans involved the transfer of
uncommercialized technologies from Federal laboratories and
universities to rural businesses and communities. Over time, the
objectives have evolved to providing more one-on-one assistance to
small manufacturers. This type of assistance responds to the stated
needs of the small manufacturing community and fills a recognized gap
in the existing service provider community.
Mr. Skeen. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Response. Manufacturing extension programs throughout the country
have identified one-on-one engineering technology assistance as a
critical need for small manufacturers as they attempt to become more
competitive and profitable. Oklahoma State University and Mississippi
State University are the only public service providing organizations
that have the demonstrated capability to provide such assistance in
their respective areas.
Mr. Skeen. What is the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The primary goal of these programs is to contribute to an
increase in business productivity, employment opportunities and per
capita income by utilizing technology and information from Federal
laboratories; Rural Enterprises Development Corporation and Industrial
Technology Research and Development Center in Durant, Oklahoma;
Mississippi State Food and Fiber Center; Vocational-Technical Education
System; Center for Local Government Technology; Cooperative Extension
Service; and other university departments and non-campus agencies.
Specific program objectives are to:
Develop greater profitability of existing enterprises.
Aid in the acquisition, creation or expansion of business and
industry in the area.
Establish an effective response process for technological and
industrial related inquiries.
Devise effective communication procedures regarding the program for
the relevant audiences.
Mr. Skeen. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. Funding appropriated to date is as follows: $350,000 in
fiscal years 1984 and 1985; $335,000 in fiscal year 1986; $333,000 in
fiscal years 1987 through 1990; $331,000 in fiscal years 1991 through
1995; and $326,000 in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Appropriations to
date total $4,674,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Although no non-federal funds have been required,
Oklahoma State University and Mississippi State University have
provided considerable amounts of matching support from state funds over
the life of the project. For the past four years, for example, support
has included a significant portion of engineering faculty salaries as
well as the administrative support of county and district extension
staff.
Mr. Skeen. Where is this work being carried out?
Response. The work is being carried out at Mississippi State
University and Oklahoma State University which are providing on-site
assistance to small manufacturers.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
objectives?
Response. The original proposal in 1984 was for 12 months. The
original objectives have been, and continue to be met. Although
individual client projects have a beginning and end, the technology
transfer process is continuous. Over the past years, specific and
measurable annual objectives and the achievement of objectives have
been documented in annual reports. The objectives of both programs have
been to: (1) continue to delivery of high-quality engineering
assistance and technology transfer services to small manufacturers; (2)
conduct joint workshops, client referral, and joint research and
application projects; and (3) demonstrate a value of service to clients
many times project operating costs. The current phase of the program
will be completed in 1997.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. Site visits and merit reviews have been conducted
annually on these projects as well as client surveys by project staff
themselves. Survey results have documented significant job creation,
productivity enhancement, and local community economic activity.
wood biomass, new york
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Wood Biomass research grant?
Response. The objective of this program is to expand, implement,
and gain acceptance of wood biomass as a sustainable, renewable and
environmentally friendly fuel source. Moreover, the program is viewed
as a means of stimulating alternative forest products for the Nation's
Central and Northern hardwood forests regions.
Mr. Skeen. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Response. The principal researchers believe that the project is of
national interest. Biomass research studies through the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and the Department of Energy span 20 or more years. As a
result, the Nation is in a position to scientifically produce
alternative fuels for power generation systems. Moreover, the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy research can
provide information on the value of tree plantings to carbon
sequestration, rural economic development, and soil erosion and
sedimentation associated with conventional agriculture.
Mr. Skeen. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Response. The goal of this project is to promote, via applied
research and technology transfer: wood biomass for energy as an
alternative farm product; the wise stewardship of land resources; the
use of domestic, renewable and sustainable energy; and enhanced farm
profitability.
To accommodate this, scientists at the State University of New York
are planting willow trials on several sites and under several
conditions. Site preparation occurred during the spring and summer of
1996. Some planting occurred during the fall of 1996, and more is
scheduled for the spring of 1997. Cornell University has hired a person
to coordinate technology transfer resulting from this and predecessor
projects.
Mr. Skeen. How long has the work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1997?
Response. This aspect of the program began with an appropriation of
$200,000 in fiscal year 1995; $197,000 was appropriated in fiscal years
1996 and 1997 for a total of $594,000.
Mr. Skeen. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Response. Four state partners and approximately 18 private partners
contribute resources at a ratio of approximately 1.5 to 1 for this
project.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the work being carried out?
Response. The field work is being conducted near Syracuse, NY.
Electronic and print media allows Cornell's technology transfer
activities to extend far beyond that point. The scope of this project
has local, state, regional, national, and international implications.
Mr. Skeen. What was the anticipated completion date for the
original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
What is the completion date of additional or related objectives?
Response. The completion date for the original objectives of the
project, willow cultivar planting, was September 30, 1996. With the
addition of some new dimensions to the project, the completion date is
now April 1, 1998. Because of the timing of one of the awards and some
weather-related problems, not all of the original objectives have been
met. Most of the unmet objectives should be completed by early summer.
Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of the project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Response. This project is reviewed annually through a merit
examination of the annual proposes plan of work. In addition, the
Project Administrator monitors progress through the reading of a series
of required reports, plus frequent phone and e-mail contacts. The
Project Administrator also met with the Principal Investigator in his
office to discuss the project during the investigator's travels to the
Washington, D.C. area.
government performance and results act (gpra)
Mr. Skeen. GPRA, known as the Results Act, requires each executive
agency to issue, no later than September 30, 1997, a strategic plan
covering at least five years. In addition to a mission statement
grounded in legislative requirements, the plans are to contain general
goals and objectives that are expected to be outcome or results
oriented (such as to improve literacy) as opposed to output or activity
oriented (such as to increase the number of education grants issued).
What progress is the agency making in developing its strategic plan,
including defining its mission and establishing appropriate goals?
Response. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service is working with the Research, Education, and Economics Mission
Agency and our Land-Grant University Partners to complete a
Comprehensive Strategic Plan that will be submitted by the September
30, 1997, deadline. A mission statement, goals, and objectives have
been defined and will respond to the directive of the Government
Performance and Results Act--GPRA--of 1993. A draft plan has been
developed and is being linked to state programs such that outputs and
outcomes can be reported.
Mr. Skeen. Has the agency identified conflicting goals for any of
its program efforts? If so, what are the performance consequences of
these conflicting goals and what actions--including seeking legislative
changes--is the agency taking to address these conflicts?
Response. CSREES has identified no conflicting goals for program
efforts related to CPRA.
Mr. Skeen. Strategic plans must be based on realistic assessments
of the resources that will be available to the agency to accomplish its
goals. As you are developing your strategic plan, how are you taking
into account projected resources that likely will be available--
especially as we move to a balanced budget? What assumptions are you
making? How are you ensuring that your goals are realistic in light of
expected resources?
Response. The Strategic plans are based on realistic assessments of
the resources that will be available. As required under the law, plans
will be developed to cover a five-year time period. Annual performance
plans will be developed to link proposed activities to the Federal
budget process. We are assuming level or declining Federal budgets to
ensure that goals and objectives are realistic.
Mr. Skeen. For Congress, the heart of the Results Act is the
statutory link between agency plans, budget requests, and the reporting
of results. Starting with fiscal year 1999, agencies are to develop
annual performance plans that define performance goals and the measures
that will be used to assess progress over the coming year. These annual
goals are to measure agency progress toward meeting strategic goals and
are to be based on the program activities as set forth in the
President's budget. What progress have you made in establishing clear
and direct linkages between the general goals in your strategic plan
and the goals to be contained in your annual performance plans? OMB
expressed concerned last year that most agencies had not made
sufficient progress in this critical area.
Response. Our agency has developed a draft strategic plan
representative of the broad goals established by the REE Mission
Agency. These goals have been interpreted into a strategic plan that
outlines agency and partner responsibilities in the broad context. This
plan is supplemented with a performance plan that brings into focus the
specific activities that will take place by our land-grant universities
and other partners to conduct research, extension and higher education
programs and report accomplishments. This establishes the formal
response to accountability standards mandated in the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993. Our agency is in the process of
conducting regional orientation sessions for land-grant institutions,
such that administrators and other program staff clearly understand the
framework of the performance plan and how they will link their program
planning and reporting to that of our agency.
Mr. Skeen. More specifically, how are you progressing in linking
your strategic and annual performance goals to the program activity
structure contained in the President's budget? Do you anticipate the
need to change or modify the activity structure to be consistent with
the agency's goals?
Response. The goals developed by CSREES will fit seamlessly into
the structure in the President's budget. At the present time, we see no
need to modify the activity structure to be consistent with agency
goals.
Mr. Skeen. Overall, what progress has your agency made--and what
challenges is it experiencing--defining results-oriented performance
measures that will allow the agency and others to determine the extent
to which goals are being met?
Response. Because of the accountability standards of GPRA and the
fact that results-oriented performance measures are required, we are
planning orientation sessions for agency staff and land-grant
university partners to describe expectations and give guidance on how
to develop the kinds of performance measures acceptable for
accountability reporting under GPRA. A concern for us is, not what is
to be reported, but how much should be reported to OMB and Congress in
defending budget requests and describing performance plans. We expect
guidance from OMB on this issue. In addition, the agency is designing a
management information system, the Research, Education, and Extension
Information System, to tract program investments and accomplishments
useful for analysis of GPRA goals and objectives.
Mr. Skeen. If applicable, what lessons did the agency learn from
its participation in the Result Act pilot phase and how are those
lessons being applied to agency-wide Results Act efforts? What steps is
the agency taking to build the capacity (information systems, personnel
skills, etc.) necessary to implement the Results Act?
Response. All USDA Mission Areas/Agencies have prepared draft
Strategic Plans which are currently being reviewed by an Under/
Assistant Secretary--or other relevant official, the Senior Policy
Staff, and the Secretary. Upon completion of the review, the Department
plans to provide copies of the Strategic Plan--including an overall
Departmentwide Executive Summary and the Strategic Plans for individual
Mission Area/Agencies--to relevant Congressional Committees.
Thereafter, we will look forward to meeting with Members of Staff to
discuss our Strategic Plan and to solicit their input and advice on
refinements to that Plan. We plan to provide copies of the Department
Strategic Plan to the following Committees:
House Agriculture Committee.
House Appropriations Committee.
House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee.
House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
House Resources Committee.
Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee.
Senate Appropriations Committee.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to solicit and
consider the views of stakeholders as they develop the strategic plans.
Stakeholders can include state and local governments, interest groups,
the private sector, and the general public, among others. Who do you
consider to be your agency's primary stakeholders and how will you
incorporate their views into the strategic plans?
Response. CSREES considers its primary stakeholders to be the Land-
Grant and other University Partners who implement programs using
Federal formula, special grant, and competitive grant funds. We have
maintained an open and continuing dialogue to incorporate their views
in the strategic plan and annual performance plans.
Mr. Skeen. For the Results Act to be successful, agencies with
similar missions, goals, or strategies will need to ensure that their
efforts are coordinated. What other Federal agencies are you working
with to ensure that your strategic plans are coordinated? What steps
have you taken to ensure that your efforts complement and do not
unnecessarily duplicate other Federal efforts?
Response. To coordinate our efforts we are working with other
Research, Education, and Economic agencies within the Department--
Agricultural Research Service, Economic Research Service, and National
Agricultural Statistics Service. Other agencies collaborate with us and
will be involved as appropriate to improve program efficiency,
eliminate unnecessary duplication, and enhance education and research
programs with the university community.
Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to consult with
Congress as they develop their strategic plans. Since these plans are
due in September, now is the time for agencies to begin the required
consultations. What are your plans for congressional consultation as
you develop your strategic plan? Which Committees will you consult
with? How will you resolve differing views?
Response. We recognize the expectation that agencies consult with
Congress as strategic plans are developed. CSREES will consult on its
plan in partnership with the USDA Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Skeen. In passing the Results Act, Congress sought to
fundamentally change the focus of Federal management and decisionmaking
to be more results-oriented. Organizations that have successfully
become results-oriented typically have found that making the
transformation envisioned by the Results Act requires significant
changes in what they do and how they do it. What changes in program
policy, organization structure, program content, and work process has
the agency made to become more results-oriented?
Response. The results-oriented mandate of GPRA has changed the
philosophy of building our budget and reporting results. Greater
emphasis will be placed on describing realistic expectations in the
budget process and describing how their expectations will have been met
as outgrowths of the five-year strategic plans and annual performance
plans.
Mr. Skeen. How are managers held accountable for implementing the
Results Act and improving performance?
Response. CSREES managers have been involved in all aspects of the
GPRA planning activities. Each understands that their role in managing
agency programs and the need to link future programs to the goals
adopted by the agency.
Mr. Skeen. How is the agency using Results Act performance goals
and information to drive daily operations?
Response. Developing the new strategic plan will result in more
efficient use of staff and discretionary resources in responding to the
five goals and thirteen objectives included in the Strategic Plan.
Pest Containment and Quarantine Facility
Mr. Fazio. I was impressed by the emphasis in each of the
testimonies by Undersecretary Woteki, Dr. Knipling, and Dr. Robinson
about the fight against pests and the fight for integrated pest
management and for food safety. The continuing emphasis on these
technologies, bioengineered pest-resistant plants, and monitoring
pesticide levels under the Food Quality Protection Act will have
increasing importance in the years to come.
Those missions just happen to dovetail with the mission of the Pest
Containment and Quarantine Facility at UC-Riverside and UC-Davis. We
need about $7 million to complete the federal share for this project.
Although USDA traditionally does not request funds for these CSREES
projects, I think you are aware of the value of this facility for
exactly the priorities you have laid out in your testimony. Perhaps you
could outline for the committee just how a facility like Riverside/
Davis facility can complement some of the missions you have emphasized
today.
Response. Plant pest management, including pests such as insects,
nematodes, bacteria, fungi, viruses and weeds, is in a state of
transition. Traditional pest control strategies based on use of
synthetic chemical pesticides are being phased out. This is due to
several factors including: pest populations that have developed
resistance to chemical pesticides; public pressure to avoid pesticide
contamination of food and the environment; discovery that some
pesticides thought to be safe may in fact be carcinogenic; and high
costs of multiple pesticide applications. The most attractive
alternative to synthetic chemicals is biological pest control. This
strategy includes use of parasites; microorganisms; predators; and
genetically-engineered insects, microorganisms, or resistant plants.
Sophisticated biological pest control methods are made possible by the
development in recent years of recombinant DNA technology, which allows
cloning of genes and stable insertion of such genes into the insects or
microorganisms. To assay the efficacy of exotic or genetically-
engineered bio-control agents, quarantine and physical containment
facilities may be needed to insure safety before field releases are
made.
Mr. Fazio. How would USDA accomplish some of these missions without
this facility--I understand that the containment level offered by the
proposed Davis facility for this type research is available at very few
installations throughout the U.S.?
Response. Currently, there are a limited number of facilities with
Biosafety level 3 capability available for biological control
experimentation with recombinant germplasm and with exotic pests. The
facilities at the University of California-Davis and the University of
California-Riverside could significantly accelerate the efforts to
develop new, innovative, and environmentally-compatible pest control
technologies.
chemical and non-chemical research appropriations
Mr. Fazio. How much money or what percent of USDA research
appropriations are now spent on chemical and non-chemical research on
crop and livestock pests and weeds? Are these resources focused on IPM
and, if not, why not?
Response. Approximately 75 percent of research appropriations for
pest management are focused on non-chemical research conducted by
CSREES and its land-grant partners. Hatch and McIntire-Stennis formula
programs and competitive grants funded by the National Research
Initiative all emphasize fundamental and applied research on non-
chemical approaches and the development of biointensive Integrated Pest
Management--IPM--systems. Much of the work on chemical research is
focused on the development of short-term reduced risk pesticides where
registrations are being lost due to regulatory and voluntary
cancellations by registrants. In addition, there is an effort to
develop more selective chemical pesticides, some of which are
biopesticides, to preserve predators and parasites and other beneficial
organisms in cropping systems grown with IPM systems.
pm-10 research
Mr. Fazio. The subcommittee approved $873,000 for FY 1997 through
the CSREES budget for PM-10--research about particulate matter and air
quality that is critical both to California and the rest of the nation.
The need in our state is great but, unfortunately, this research money
is currently being split between California and Washington state.
Describe the nature of research going on at the institutions in both
states and any other states under this research program, tell us how
they complement one another, and what your proposal in the FY 1998
budget is in this area?
Response. As directed by Congress in establishing the PM-10,
California and Washington research grant, the funding from the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service--CSREES--
is divided equally between the two States. According to the principal
investigators, research by both the University of California at Davis
and Washington State University address serious public concerns related
to particulate emissions and resulting effects on air quality and
potential effects on human health. The overall objectives of both the
California and Washington program are to determine the role of
agricultural land and production and management practices as sources
and causes of particulate emissions and to develop alternative or
improved practices to reduce these emissions. Because of quite
different climatic and soils conditions and types of cropping systems
and management practices, the specific research objectives differ quite
distinctly between the two states' programs.
The PM-10 research in California is centered around the intensive
production of cotton, grain crops, and fruit and nut crops, such as
almonds, figs, and other high-value crops. Production of these crops
requires intensive tillage, cultivation, and harvesting operations
which can create potential problems for dust or particulate emissions.
Research by scientists at the University of California at Davis is
developing sampling and monitoring programs to determine the source and
extent of PM-10 particulates in these agricultural production areas and
is developing unique ``fingerprinting'' techniques to more precisely
pinpoint the sources of origin. In addition, the California research is
developing knowledge on the PM-10 emission-potential of various field
crop operations to be used as a basis for developing new control
methods for PM-10 emissions from California agriculture.
In Washington, the production of the major crops of dryland wheat
and grain in low rainfall areas requires the extensive use of crop-
fallow rotations to conserve soil moisture. This results in leaving
large acreages of soils with no crop cover, with potential for periodic
severe wind erosion, and severe air pollution problems. Other PM-10
particulate emission problems are related to the practice of crop
residue burning in grass seed production fields to control pests and
permit efficient operation of planting equipment. Researchers in
Washington State University and USDA scientists are developing new data
on the sources of PM-10 emissions during wind events and the sources of
such emissions as a basis for effective and economic control practices.
These studies include alternative conservation or no-tillage cropping
systems to increase water intake and reduce soil loss by wind and to
conserve crop or vegetative residue cover on soils susceptible to wind
erosion.
According to the research's principal investigator(s), both
California and Washington scientists collaborate and share information
gained on PM-10 monitoring and sampling techniques, and, in cooperation
with USDA scientists, are developing new ``fingerprinting'' techniques
that will help determine and distinguish between agricultural and non-
agricultural sources of PM-10 emissions. The research reports that
studies in California and Washington both include collaboration between
Federal and state scientists in other states with similar PM-10
concerns or with ongoing research that is complementary. For example,
both states have cooperative wind erosion and PM-10 emissions research
with Federal and state scientists in Texas and Kansas who have
extensive experience and laboratory resources devoted to wind erosion
control on Great Plains soils. Washington scientists collaborate
closely with scientists in the neighboring states of Idaho and Oregon
on joint cropping systems studies. Both studies included participation
of private farmers and growers in field research studies to ensure the
research results are practical and economic and to increase their
adoption by other growers.
Mr. Fazio. Do you intend to keep or alter the state distribution in
the future--what would make you consider doing so?
Response. The principal investigator believes the research in both
California and Washington is very important to prevent agricultural
losses and to protect human health. However, in keeping with the
Administration's policy of awarding research grants competitively, no
further Federal funding for this program as currently positioned is
requested. Research could be continued at the state's discretion using
formula funds, or the principal investigators could apply for the
competitive grants program under the National Research Initiative or
the Fund for Rural America.
Economic Research Service
farming operations
Mr. Skeen. Update the Committee on the size of farming operation it
takes to support a family of four.
Response. Data on farm revenues and expenses have been collected
through USDA's annual Farm Costs and Returns survey and reported every
year since 1984. The larger the farm, the more likely it is to have
partners, shareholders, etc. Results for 1995 show that 16-20 percent
of farms were large enough that, relying solely on farm income, a
family of four would have income above the official poverty threshold.
If ``adequate'' income is the ability to cover average household
expenditures, data show that 7-9 percent of farms generated sufficient
income to cover expenditures for at least one household, if farming was
the only source of earnings. The average farm with ``adequate'' income
had sales of more than $200,000 and assets valued at $800,000 to
$1,300,000. Ability to generate ``adequate'' income varies across size
of farm, type of commodity, specialty, and region. For example, tobacco
farms with net farm income above the poverty threshold had average
gross sales of $110,500 and assets valued at an average of $388,100.
This contrasts with dairy farms which had gross cash income of $267,200
and assets valued at $726,000, on average. Farms in the Appalachian
Region meeting family expenses with net farm income had average gross
cash income of $260,400 and net worth of $674,800, while farms in the
Pacific needed $807,300 in average gross cash income. These farms in
the Pacific averaged $1.8 million in assets.
On average, farm households are on par with other households in the
United States--both earning approximately $45,000. In 1995, about
three-fourths of all farm households had total household incomes above
the poverty level for a family of four. Household income includes not
only the share of income generated by the farm, but also income from
off-farm sources. Because almost three-quarters of farms have gross
sales less than $50,000--small farms typically lose money--most farm
households rely on off-farm income sources for family income. ERS has
typically used the $50,000 mark to classify what is called a
``commercial-size'' farm. But, even commercial-farm households have
significant off-farm income.
farm household income
Mr. Skeen. Please update the table on page 168 of last year's
hearing record that shows the level and sources of income for farm
operator households. Please provide a copy of the latest table for the
record.
Response. Annual estimates of farm operator household income are
published eleven times a year in Agricultural Outlook. The most recent
table, published in the March 1997 issue, indicates that farm household
income averaged $44,392 in 1995. About 11 percent of average farm
household income was from farm sources, with the remainder from off-
farm jobs and businesses, investments, and transfer payments, like
Social Security.
Following is an updated table that shows average income to farm
operator households.
[Page 448--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
farm income implications
Mr. Skeen. Last year you indicated that only 12 percent of
household income was from farm income. What are the short and long
range implications of this?
Response. The most important short-run implication is that operator
households, in general, are affected more on a day-to-day basis by
changes in the business cycle and in the local nonfarm economy than by
changes in the farm economy. This is true because most farm households
do not operate farms that could support a family. Only $1,000 in
agricultural sales is necessary for an operation to qualify as a farm,
and nearly half of farm households operate farms with gross sales less
than $10,000. Most of the operators of these farms have a nonfarm
occupation or are retired. Households operating farms with gross sales
of $500,000 or more received one-fourth of their income from off-farm
sources. For many households, farm income remains critical.
Over time, farm productivity has grown, leading to farm
consolidation opportunities to engage in, off-farm work for operators
of less competitive small farms, and fewer operator households relying
heavily on their farms for income. These trends will continue, with
long-run implications for the nature of the local economy in the 556
farm-dependent counties relying on farming for 20 percent of locally
generated income. Farm structure will continue to change, with fewer
and larger commercial farms and a large number of ``residential
farms.'' In the future, it will be even more important to distinguish
among the size and types of farms when describing distribution of
income and effects of changes in the farm economy. The low percentage
of average household income coming from farming reflects the increasing
concentration of production as well as the $1,000 farm definition.
farm and pesticide use data
Mr. Skeen. Your budget request includes an increase of $281,000 for
data acquisition and analysis of farm practices and pesticide use. What
is the total amount you intend to expend on this initiative in fiscal
year 1998?
Response. ERS has taken steps to refocus and improve use of the
limited amount of farm and production practice survey funds available
to the Agency. Several surveys of farm business financial performance
and crop production practices were consolidated to create a new survey
that we call the Agricultural Resource Management Study (ARMS). While
the new integrated survey will enable ERS to link farm financial and
economic data with data on adoption and use of resource-conserving
production practices, we will be limited in the amount of geographical
and physical detail that we will be able to provide. Likewise, the
sample size will constrain the amount of distributional analysis that
our analysts will be able to undertake to provide insight on either
various types and sizes of farm operations such as wheat, cotton, or
corn, or on environmentally vulnerable conservation areas.
The $281,000 increase included in the FY 1998 budget would be added
to the funds ERS is now using to support and analyze ARMS data. In FY
1997, ERS allocated $4.1 million to this activity.
data funds
Mr. Skeen. The data component of this request would be directed
toward three options, depending on information already collected. How
do you know these funds will even be needed?
Response. The intent is to use the funds to increase knowledge
about the costs and benefits of resource-conserving production
practices. As I stated, ERS has developed a survey approach to link
farm finance and economic data with data on adoption and use of
environmentally-sensitive production practices. Enumeration of the ARMS
will not be complete until late Spring 1997. Results of the ARMS will
be carefully evaluated to determine whether the new funds would be most
efficiently used to support an expansion in sample size or new
questions to assure that appropriate economic data are collected and to
enhance spatial coverage of the survey, an expansion in the number of
commodities surveyed, or to expand the linkage between practice
adoption, economic data, and natural resource characteristics such as
those collected by the Natural Resources Inventory. Regardless of the
choice made on how to best allocate the additional funds, steps taken
by the Agency to address critical data voids would be enhanced by
availability of the additional funding.
farm practices
Mr. Skeen. Do you have any preliminary results from the farm
practices and pesticide use study? For example, how has the adoption of
alternative farming practices affected production costs and farm
income? Are there any regional patterns to the adoption of alternative
farming practices?
Response. We have on-going work to determine the relationship
between farming production systems and production costs and returns. We
have already released results on production practices, input
characteristics, and commodity costs and returns for hogs, barley, and
milk. Our analysis of milk costs and returns has been expanded to the
dairy farm business and the dairy's contribution to the whole farm.
Economic basebooks on wheat and rice will be released in FY 1997, with
basebooks on burley tobacco, oats, grain sorghum, and peanuts due for
release in FY 1998. Each basebook will be followed with a farm business
analysis.
Beginning in 1995, we have included several survey questions about
water and pest management strategies to determine whether water
management practices and/or tillage practices were adjusted to control
pests. Questions were also asked about factors that influenced the
choice of these strategies. The 1996 Agricultural Resource Management
Study--ARMS--survey data will be even more inclusive, as the Cropping
Practices Survey and the National Animal Health Monitoring System are
incorporated into ERS' on-going farm business and enterprise costs and
return accounts surveys. Corn, flue-cured tobacco, and cow-calf will be
the first commodities studied with these new data.
agricultural practices
Mr. Skeen. Also, can you draw any preliminary conclusions about the
profitability and environmental effect of integrated pest management,
nutrient management, irrigation, and precision farming?
Response. The integration of two major ERS survey efforts in 1996
combined economic, environmental, and demographic data to increase
efficiency and to enable analyses of financial performance and
production practices. Costs and returns data has been linked with
detailed questions about the adoption of pest, nutrient, soil, and
water management strategies. In addition, the economic and demographic
data can be linked with some natural resource attributes to provide
insight into whether the productive capacity of the land affects
producers' adoption decisions, and whether the land on which
agricultural practices are used are vulnerable to soil erosion or
chemical leaching. The data from the new, integrated Agricultural
Resource Management Study (ARMS) survey are not yet available for
analysis. Precision farming is an emerging technology to manage spatial
variability of soils and pests by making more precise application of
seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides to small areas with similar
characteristics. The technology is so new--in most cases only 1 year
and for a few farms 2-3 years--that not enough economic data are
available for a reliable evaluation. Research is planned to determine
how the adoption of selected management practices affect production
costs and farm income for corn, flue-cured tobacco, and cow-calf
producers. The second year of the effort will target soybeans, cotton,
and sugar cane growers. Because of sample size and crop coverage, the
survey can not be expanded to obtain data on production practices in
environmentally-sensitive regions.
Mr. Skeen. One of the objectives of the farm practices and
pesticide use work was to provide insights into developing practices
that are economically attractive to producers. What insight has the
study provided so far?
Response. The costs and returns data associated with the use of
alternative pest management practices from the 1996-97 Agricultural
Resource and Management (ARMS) survey will be available by summer 1997.
Previous surveys did not contain observations that addressed financial,
demographic, environmental, and production factors that are critical to
understanding choices made by producers. Analysis of the ARMS survey
data should provide insights into some aspects of the economic benefits
of the adoption of alternative practices for corn production, but
sample size and crop coverage may not be adequate to compare relative
profits between practices.
linking ers data collection to the nri
Mr. Skeen. As you know, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
collects and analyzes natural resource data for the Natural Resource
Inventory. Are you working with NRCS to link the NRI with the data you
are collecting?
Response. We have had a long standing joint data collection effort
with NRCS and their predecessor agency, SCS. Under the Water Quality
initiative we cooperated with them in linking production data and input
data to NRI points in several river basins. Analysis of this data is
continuing and the output from this study is targeted for publication
in 1997.
In 1996, ERS and NASS cooperated with NRCS by using the Agriculture
Resource Management Study as a vehicle to integrate 2,500 NRI sample
points with the NASS list frame sample. The project was experimental in
nature. Primarily it attempted to gain efficiency in data collection,
linking resource information to the production of specific commodities.
This effort produced less than was expected in terms of completed
records for the target commodities at the NRI sample points. This
suggests that while resources are required for production of
commodities, commodity oriented studies are limited in gathering
information about resource issues. However, ERS and NRCS are continuing
to discuss methods of gaining efficiency, including more effective
prescreening of the proposed NRI sample points relative to their
production of the target commodities. Based on our mutual interest in
data collection and analysis, ERS and NRCS will continue to work
together in developing information that will help resolve both resource
and agricultural production issues.
integrated pest management
Mr. Skeen. Please provide the Committee with a table that shows the
percentage of cropland using IPM over the past five years.
Response. Unfortunately, I am not able to provide a table that
shows IPM use over the past five years. National surveys are not
conducted annually for all major crops. Instead, crops are targeted
such that growers of all the major commodities are surveyed every few
years. The National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), working
with ERS, is developing a survey plan to ensure that a national
assessment of IPM use can be made in 2000. National surveys can be used
to estimate the adoption of individual practices, but such surveys are
hard to use to analyze the continuum of IPM use from ``low IPM'' that
may be defined as the use of scouting only to ``high IPM'' that would
entail a suit of practices such as alternating pesticides, spot
treatment, use of biologic controls, or crop rotation to break the pest
cycle. The effectiveness of any pest management strategy depends on the
crop, region, pest pressures, and economic factors. Pest scouting, for
example, was used on 64 percent of corn acreage in 1993, 85 percent of
acreage for fall potatoes, and 69 percent of soybean acreage. For a
given crop, there also can be wide variation in adoption rates. For the
corn acres mentioned above, scouting was done on 76 percent of the
acres in Illinois but only 46 percent in Wisconsin. The most recent
summary of IPM use on major field crops and selected fruits and
vegetables was published by ERS in 1994 in the report, Adoption of
Integrated Pest Management in the United States, which estimated that
about one-half of the Nation's crop acreage was under IPM as defined by
the use of scouting and thresholds.
agricultural practices
Mr. Skeen. When will the work on farm practices and pesticide use
be completed?
Response. The ERS program on resource-conserving practices and
chemical use is an ongoing effort designed to provide a richer
understanding of why farmers adopt these technologies, the effect of
adoption on the costs of production, how these practices are related to
changes in environmental quality, and the role of public policy in
encouraging adoption of resource-conserving technology. Delivering
information and research results to the agricultural, environmental,
and consumer communities is a priority activity. ERS has published
several documents on the use of pest, water, soil, and nutrient
management strategies in professional journals and through more widely
distributed outlets, such as Agricultural Outlook. An updated edition
of the comprehensive handbook, Agricultural Resources and Environmental
Indicators (AREI) which contains data and analysis on trends in input
use and production practices, will be distributed in July, 1997. The
AREI Updates series provides timely summaries of data from ERS and NASS
surveys. In addition, ERS will publish the proceedings of the Third
National Integrated Pest Management Symposium/Workshop which contains a
synthesis of our current understanding of who is adopting IPM, the
barriers to IPM adoption, problems in measuring IPM adoption, and the
costs and benefits of IPM.
integrated pest management
Mr. Skeen. Given USDA is over half way to its deadline for
enhancing the use of Integrated Pest Management, will the results be
available in time to help meet the goal of having IPM practiced on 75
percent of the Nation's cropland by the year 2000?
Response. The 1994 ERS report Adoption of Integrated Pest
Management in the United States estimated that about one-half of the
Nation's crop acreage was under IPM as defined by the use of scouting
and thresholds. Adoption varies widely depending on crop, region, and
pest problems. The national surveys conducted by the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) in cooperation with ERS have
limited crop coverage and sample size. Therefore, it will take several
survey cycles with 1996 being the first integrated survey year, to
cover the major field crops, vegetables, and fruits with respect to the
use of select pest management practices.
agricultural practices
Mr. Skeen. How will the information developed in the farm practices
and pesticide use study be used to encourage implementation of improved
farming practices? How will the information be delivered to producers?
Is agribusiness involved in any phase of the study?
Response. ERS has published several documents on the use of pest,
water, soil, and nutrient management strategies in professional
journals and internal papers. Delivering information and research
results to the agricultural, environmental, and consumer communities is
a priority activity. An updated edition of the comprehensive handbook,
Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (AREI) which
contains data and analysis on trends in input use and production
practices, will be distributed in 1997 in hardcopy and on the Internet.
The AREI Updates series, also available in hardcopy and on the
Internet, provides timely summaries of data from ERS and NASS surveys.
In addition, ERS will publish the proceedings of the Third National
Integrated Pest Management Symposium/Workshop which contains a
synthesis of our current understanding of who is adopting IPM, the
barriers to IPM adoption, problems in measuring IPM adoption, and the
costs and benefits of IPM. Participants of the Symposium/Workshop
represented agribusiness, individual farmers, universities, government
agencies, and environmental and consumer groups. ERS research on
factors that influence the adoption of improved farming practices is
used to develop policies and implementation strategies to encourage
such adoption. For example, ERS research results are used by CSREES to
better target extension efforts and deliver assistance to producers.
developing performance measures
Mr. Skeen. Another component of the increase in your 1998 request
is for $125,000 to support development of reliable performance
information for GPRA. You state that agencies are finding that
developing measures that can be compared across agencies is virtually
impossible. Are you requesting additional funds to do the impossible?
Response. The wording about the virtual impossibility of developing
measures that can be compared across agencies emphasizes the complexity
of the tasks involved in implementing GPRA. Developing measures for
deriving the benefits from this outcome oriented management approach
depends on at least two critical and interrelated aspects--setting the
goals correctly and finding appropriate indicators to measure progress
toward the goals.
The first challenge regarding setting performance goals, measures,
and indicators is to make the goals output-oriented, not input-
oriented, and measure results not process. A second goal setting
challenge relates to the relative importance to be given to cost
effective outcomes versus effectiveness at any cost. A third, and
perhaps the most difficult, challenge is balancing goal setting between
outcomes which the agency can definitely control, versus broader policy
outcomes sought. Simplistic reliance on quantitative measurements can
inhibit rather than contribute to successful outcomes. Setting quantity
goals for people served and reports produced may undermine the quality
of the service and the reports. Setting inappropriate or too few goals
can generate energy to the wrong ends. Setting too many goals may lead
to confusion about, or even set conflicting priorities.
The special expertise the ERS will bring to this multi-agency
effort will be in providing perspective and advice on bridging customer
satisfaction measurement--e.g., responsiveness and courtesy shown to
customers--with measuring success in meeting basic goals for the
program--e.g., retiring most environmentally sensitive lands at lowest
cost to U.S. taxpayers. ERS will also work with other agencies under
the initiative to develop performance measures that can be compared
between different agencies that are measuring similar outputs and
outcomes.
statistical expertise for gpra measurement
Mr. Skeen. You are one agency among others in a $1.6 million effort
to improve statistical expertise for GPRA measurement. Provide a list
of the government agencies involved along with how much each is
requesting to support this initiative.
Response. The following table summarizes participation by agency in
this effort which includes: (a) $1.6 million to develop or refine
comparable ``turn-key'' data collection and measurement resources for
use by agencies throughout the Government; (b) $0.75 million to develop
standardized questions and satisfaction scales for common elements of
Federal services; and (c) $1.2 million to add 10 Federal agencies to
the American Consumer Satisfaction Index. The additional funding for
ERS would allow it to participate regarding performance measurement
issues under the turnkey sampling portion a and question development in
the standard instruments and scales portion b.
GPRA MEASUREMENT ACTIVITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard
Turnkey instruments Customer Total
Agency sampling and scales satisfaction $000
$000 $000 index $000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Labor Statistics....................................... 400 200 ............ 600
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.............................. 100 50 120 270
Census........................................................... 200 100 ............ 300
Energy Information Agency........................................ 200 50 360 610
Economic Research Service........................................ 100 25 ............ 125
National Agricultural Statistical Service........................ 250 50 240 540
National Center Health Statistics................................ 250 200 480 930
Statistics of Income............................................. 100 75 ............ 175
----------------------------------------------
Total $000................................................. 1,600 750 1,200 3,550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 farm bill and economic research activities
Mr. Skeen. With the shift from price supports to production
flexibility payments, how have the activities and functions of the
agency changed?
Response. The shift price supports to production flexibility
payments will have little effect on the primary function of the
Economic Research Service, which is to provide economic research,
information, and analysis for more informed public and private
decisions related to food, agriculture, resources, and rural America.
The farm policy shift, however, has led to a redirection or reemphasis
in research activities within the Agency. For example, the 1996 Farm
Bill's removal of acreage bases and planting restrictions, and
decoupling of support payments from production decisions will require a
major research effort to understand analytically commodity supply
response and regional production adjustments in this changing policy
environment. The Farm Bill also shifts much of the burden of managing
market risk from the government to the producer. The ERS research
program has responded by redirecting resources toward the study of the
economics of alternative market risk management strategies. Research
activities are also underway to study the international price
volatility aspects of the Farm Bill and the implication for global food
security.
The shift in farm programs has also led the Agency to evaluate the
changing nature of agricultural market information needs. One working
hypothesis underlying our study of agricultural market information
needs is that as markets become less reliant on government support and
more market oriented, market-related information, like that provided by
ERS, becomes more important. This hypothesized positive relationship
between market orientation and the value of market information was
recently suggested as the reason that private sector attendance at
USDA's 1997 Agricultural Outlook Conference was double what it had been
in pre-1996 Farm Bill years.
trade, risk management and production
Mr. Skeen. You anticipated receiving more questions on trade
opportunities, risk management, and production patterns. Has this been
the case?
Response. Yes, we have had an increase in interest in each of these
areas. In the area of trade opportunities, we have received a wide
variety of requests, ranging from inquiries regarding increased
opportunities created by NAFTA and the Uruguay Round to implications of
the Farm Bill for global food security.
In the area of risk management, we are continuing our close working
relationship with USDA's Risk Management Agency, and receive many
inquiries from the Congress, research organizations, and producers.
Many questions have centered around the wide array of alternative risk
management strategies that producers use--ranging from diversification,
spreading sales over the year, and keeping equity in cash to the use of
hedging, forward contracting, crop insurance, and revenue insurance--
and the effectiveness of these strategies in reducing producers' risk
of low incomes. We have also received many questions regarding expected
changes in risk management strategies under the new Farm Bill, as well
as questions on the potential for producers to adversely select across
the various new risk management products, and ways that current
Federally-subsidized insurance-based programs could be modified to
improve actuarial soundness and producer acceptance.
We have found greater interest in changing production patterns and
acreage response under the 1996 Farm Bill environment. We contribute
both domestic and international analysis regarding expected acreage
shifts, production patterns, and acreage response to the monthly Inter-
Agency Commodity Estimates Committee for grains, oilseeds, and cotton.
In addition, we are undertaking an in-depth study of acreage response,
focusing initially on the estimation of elasticities for corn in the
North Central region. Many questions on such supply response issues
have been raised by policymakers, other USDA agencies, and various
research organizations.
1996 farm bill
Mr. Skeen. Can you tell the Committee what effect the shift to
production flexibility payments is having on commodity production,
planting decisions, farm income, agricultural markets, the Federal
budget, and the environment?
Response. The shift to production flexibility contract payments
decouples production decisions from government payments, thereby
accelerating trends of the previous two major farm acts toward greater
market orientation. Production of most field crops over the next 7
years is expected to be similar to what would have occurred if the
previous law had been extended because the links between government
payments and producer planting decisions had weakened over the last 10
years.
Greater market orientation in the domestic agricultural sector
under the 1996 Farm Bill puts U.S. farmers in a favorable position for
competing in the global marketplace. In addition, trade programs under
the 1996 Farm Bill are targeted to place more emphasis on markets with
greatest potential for U.S. exports.
Budgetary outlays for production flexibility contract payments over
1996 to 2002 are lower than deficiency payments were over the previous
7 years. In addition, since production flexibility contract payments
are not linked to market prices, budgetary exposure falls within a
narrow range, unlike potential outlays with deficiency payments.
Aggregate net farm income is higher under the 1996 Act than
projected under previous legislation. With favorable market conditions
for U.S. agricultural products, deficiency payments under a
continuation of previous farm law would have been lower than income
support payments under the 1996 Act. However, with government payments
fixed under the 1996 Act, farm income could become more variable. As a
result, farmers will place increased attention on risk management.
The primary conservation program is the Conservation Reserve
Program. The CRP was re-authorized in the 1996 Farm Act and has been
redesigned to target the most environmentally sensitive cropland.
production flexibility contracts
Mr. Skeen. What proportion of farm income will come from production
flexibility contracts in 1997?
Response. During 1990-95, the latest years for which ERS has final
estimates, government payments made up about 5 percent of farm cash
income and averaged $9 billion per year. Our most recent forecast
predicts that all government farm payments will average 4 percent of
farm cash income in both 1996--actual 1996 data is not yet available--
and 1997. We estimate production flexibility payments in 1997 would
account for about 3 percent of farm cash income.
transition to post-2002
Mr. Skeen. The 1996 Farm Bill calls for production flexibility
contract payments to end in 2002 with payments of just over $4.0
billion that year. How are farmers planning to manage the loss of $4.0
billion in income and what is USDA doing to ease the transition, if
payments are discontinued?
Response. Many farmers appear to be increasingly aware of the need
to better manage their income risk under the 1996 Farm Act environment,
a situation that is accentuated by the possible loss of $4.0 billion in
income after 2002. Data are currently being collected through USDA's
Agricultural Resource Management Study that address changes in
management strategies in response to the new policy environment.
Preliminary estimates examining the relationship between financial
performance and the use of strategies will be available in mid-summer.
To help producers manage their farm income risk and to ease the
transition if production flexibility contract payments are eliminated
in 2002, USDA has been actively involved in developing new types of
safety nets. New pilot revenue insurance programs have been recently
developed, and were first offered in the spring of 1996 for selected
crops in selected areas. These programs--one developed by USDA, the
other by American Agrisurance, a private company--were expanded to
cover winter wheat in the fall of 1996 and additional crops and
geographic areas in the spring of 1997. A further private sector
product, developed by the Iowa Farm Bureau, is being offered in spring
1997 for the first time. In total, revenue insurance is available in
selected areas for corn, soybeans, wheat, grain sorghum, and cotton.
These revenue insurance products are subsidized and reinsured by USDA.
The revenue insurance concept has been quite popular with producers
in many areas. For example, Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC), the product
developed by American Agrisurance, was first offered in the spring of
1996 for corn and soybeans in Iowa and Nebraska. Producer participation
was quite high, with CRC covering about one-third of the corn and
soybean acreage in the two States. Participation was somewhat lower for
winter wheat, and much interest is focused on producer participation
this current spring, with expanded crop and county coverage. In part,
due to considerable producer interest, the FY 1998 President's Budget
submission requests that revenue insurance be expanded from a pilot
program to nation-wide coverage, potentially expanding the revenue
protection available to farmers.
In addition, USDA has examined various other types of risk
management programs to expand the safety net to producers, ranging from
a re-tooled options pilot program to an income stabilization account
approach. USDA has also taken steps to initiate a risk management
education program, focusing not only on the price- and yield-based
income risks faced by producers, but also the financial risks they
face.
farm bill changes
Mr. Skeen. With the shift from price supports to production
flexibility payments, how have the activities and functions of the
agency changed?
Response. The shift from price supports to production flexibility
payments will have little affect on the primary function of the
Economic Research Service, which is to provide economic research,
information and analysis for more informed public and private decisions
related to food, agriculture, resources and rural America. The farm
policy shift, however, has led to redirection or reemphasis in research
activities within the Agency. For example, the Farm Bill's removal of
acreage bases and planting restrictions, and decoupling of support
payments from production decisions will require a major research effort
to understand analytically commodity supply response and regional
production adjustments in this changing policy environment. The Farm
Bill also shifts much of the burden of managing market risk from the
government to the producer. The ERS research program has responded by
redirecting resources toward the study of the economics of alternative
market risk management strategies. Research activities are also
underway to study the international price volatility aspects of the
Farm Bill and the implication for global food security. The shift in
farm programs has also led the Agency to evaluate the changing nature
of agricultural market information needs.
Mr. Skeen. Can you tell us what effect changes in the 1996 Farm Act
are having on commodity production, planting decisions, farm income,
and agricultural markets?
Response. The shift to production flexibility contract payments
decouples production decisions from Government payments, thereby
accelerating trends of the previous two major farm acts toward greater
market orientation. Production of most field crops over the next 7
years is expected to be similar to what would have occurred if previous
law had been extended because the links between government payments and
producer planting decisions had weakened over the last 10 years.
Greater market orientation in the domestic agricultural sector
under the 1996 Farm Act puts U.S. farmers in a favorable position for
competing in the global marketplace. In addition, trade programs under
the 1996 Farm Bill are targeted to place more emphasis on markets with
greatest potential for U.S. export gains.
Aggregate net farm income is higher under the 1996 Act than
projected under previous legislation. With favorable market conditions
for U.S. agricultural products, deficiency payments under a
continuation of previous farm law would been lower than income support
payments under the 1996 Farm Bill. However, with Government payments
fixed under the 1996 Farm Bill, farm income could become more variable.
As a result, farmers will place increased attention on risk management.
risk management research
Mr. Skeen. Provide a brief description of the work you are doing in
the area of risk management.
Response. ERS work on risk management covers a wide range of issue
areas and levels of detail, from broad policy issues to improvements
that could be made in specific USDA programs. At the broad policy
level, we are developing a risk management synthesis piece that
examines the wide array of risk management alternatives available to
producers--including forward contracting, diversification, futures, and
insurance--and the effective use of these strategies among producers
with different characteristics and in different situations.
In addition, we have included questions in the most recent
Agricultural Resource Management Study (ARMS) addressing changes in
risk management under the new 1996 Farm Act environment. Data are being
collected on a wide range of diverse management strategies that farmers
began using, or changed the use of, because farm programs changed.
We have also been investigating the effectiveness of alternative
risk management tools--including revenue insurance, crop insurance, and
the use of forward sales and options--in reducing risk across different
regions. Our findings indicate that the probability of an
extraordinarily low revenue for a ``representative'' corn producer who
sells an entire crop at harvest varies from about 8 percent in the
central Corn Belt to 22-23 percent in States such as South Dakota and
North Carolina. In contrast, revenue insurance--or the combined use of
crop insurance and a forward sale--reduce the risk of a very low
revenue to essentially zero in the central Corn Belt and to about 5-7
percent in more marginal producing States. We are expanding this
analysis to additional crops and areas, and will publish a
comprehensive report on these findings later this year.
We are also examining improvements that could be made to current
federally-subsidized risk management tools. We have reviewed the rate-
setting methodologies underpinning current revenue insurance programs,
and are examining the Standard Reinsurance Agreement and the risk borne
by private companies. We are conducting evaluations of the current
peanut, potato, and peach crop insurance programs, focusing on
developing recommendations for improving actuarial soundness and
producer satisfaction. We also prepare analyses of the feasibility of
insuring crops that are not currently insured, and have prepared
analyses of prevented planting provisions, the new farmer pilot, and
other topics.
modeling capabilities
Mr. Skeen. Please assess your modeling capabilities. What are your
strengths and weaknesses? How often are your models updated to include
more accurate assumptions?
Response. The strength of the models at ERS is their generally high
level of empirical sophistication. More than perhaps any other part of
the discipline of economics, agricultural economists have long sought
understanding of the food and agricultural sector by constructing and
estimating complex models of producer, consumer, and market behavior.
Today many important public policy issues, such as water pollution and
food safety, involve both market and non-market phenomena, and ERS
modelers are continually challenged to value outcomes--cleaner water,
healthier food in ways that can be incorporated into traditional
empirical models. Compared to many other areas of government activity
and intervention, agricultural--and to a lesser extent, food and
natural resource--policy is extremely well supported by empirical
models whose structures are largely derived from the tenets of economic
theory.
For ERS, the current biggest weakness is the models' necessary
reliance on observations of past producer, consumer, and government
behavior. The record of the past provides the basis for estimating
important market and policy relationships, which are useful in
understanding the future to the extent that it is similar to the past.
However, when policy changes dramatically, as it has with respect to
commodity production with the 1996 farm bill, the models' reliability
in looking ahead may be constrained. The same would be true of models
that try to represent the behavior of nutrition assistance program
recipients, for example, under welfare reform. The reliance on
historical data in statistical estimation of model relationships is
almost impossible to avoid, but often there are other ways to gain
insight into changes in future behavior and adjust the models structure
or coefficients accordingly. These modifications are under continuous
consideration by ERS analysts.
research with iowa state
Mr. Skeen. EPA has entered into an agreement with Iowa State
University for agricultural modeling; do you have any similar
agreements with research institutions? Are there any advantages for you
to work with EPA and Iowa State?
Response. Although ERS is not knowledgeable about the specifics of
the EPA/Iowa State relationship, it is worth noting that EPA does not
itself have the analytical capacity to build large models of
agricultural sector behavior. Therefore, EPA's contract with Iowa State
likely makes sense as a complement to its in-house expertise. Moreover,
Iowa State's particular knowledge of farm and environmental conditions
in the Midwest would seem very useful to EPA as it considers regulation
of farm chemicals. ERS has, within the past five years, had two
agreements with Iowa State that drew on its knowledge of Midwestern
agriculture to consider atrazine management and then, more generally, a
range of alternative pesticide and fertilizer management options in the
region. In these cases, Iowa State's regional modeling expertise was a
direct complement to the national perspective that ERS provides on
agricultural and natural resource issues. Under such circumstances,
collaboration among Federal agencies and State universities makes a
strong contribution to policy and program development. ERS supports
exploiting the complementarity of ERS and university expertise, as
evidenced by the agreements with Iowa State. More generally, ERS has
entered into cooperative agreements with universities to collaborate on
study of commodity market conditions, food policies, and a range of
issues to which the university perspective is a valuable addition.
model access
Mr. Skeen. Who has access to your models?
Response. All the models that ERS generates are in the public
domain, as they are the intellectual property of the U.S. government.
The only legitimate constraints on access to ERS models arise when
confidentiality of data sources must be protected. However, there are
well-established procedures for protecting confidentiality that
generally do not limit access of those with legitimate research
interests.
Ease of access to ERS models, however, is a different issue. The
agency is continually striving to ensure its major policy and
forecasting models are available not only to other researchers but also
to public and private sector interests. Clear documentation of data
sources and estimation techniques, for example, must be made available
along with the actual specification of the model itself, and there is
some unevenness across the ERS program in the level of information
available. Access to the latest versions of models may be complicated
by continual updating of model structure and estimation, but it should
be possible to make the need for and timing of any changes more
transparent. Models are generally intermediate inputs into larger
analytical endeavors, so model documentation is important but the
context in which they are used really determines their value and
interpretation. The quality of ERS work will benefit by having its
models widely accessible, as review by research peers and practitioners
can lead to important improvements.
data needs
Mr. Skeen. Accurate, up-to-date, data is essential to modeling and
policy analysis. Please describe your most urgent data collection needs
and their relationship to policy analysis.
Response. ERS senior management has made assessment of the agency's
data requirements a top priority. Examination of the history of ERS
data purchase expenditures documents the variability of purchases in
recent years. Given the expectation of only slightly increased
appropriations in future years, it is imperative that scarce resources
be directed to the most critical data purchases. Accordingly, and for
the first time, the agency senior managers will ``retreat'' to the US
Arboretum on April 8, to devote a day to: an inventory of current data
sources both in terms of surveys directly commissioned by ERS and
secondary in terms of data made available by other Federal agencies,
such as Census, and other private and public sources and to discuss how
to set data priorities in the future.
Data priorities must be clearly linked to the needs of the research
program, itself largely policy-driven. At the present, a general
observation can be made that the breadth of ERS responsibilities in the
future will transcend a traditional focus on commodity markets. In FY
1997, all $4 million ERS data purchase funds will go to support the
Agricultural Resource and Management Survey, administered by NASS. This
new and innovative survey combines, for the first time, questions about
farm finances and crop and livestock production and natural resource
management practices. ARMS is a critical underpinning of a large part
of the ERS program, but it cannot supply information about consumer
demand, about foreign market behavior, or any number of other important
economic phenomenon. ERS would be pleased to report to the Committee on
its findings with respect to data needs, following our retreat.
napiap
Mr. Skeen. How much did your agency contribute to the National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program in fiscal year 1996
and what do you anticipate contributing in fiscal year 1997?
Response. ERS contributed $300,000 to the National Agricultural
Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) in FY 1996. These funds
were used to support the salary of the Deputy Director of NAPIAP and
ERS staff who contribute to NAPIAP assessment activities. ERS estimates
that its contribution in FY 1997 will also be $300,000.
global food assessment
Mr. Skeen. What were the results of your annual global food
assessment analysis in 1996?
Response. Food aid needs for 65 developing countries are estimated
at 9 million tons for 1996/97, 35 percent below the estimate needs for
1995/96. This reduction in needs can be attributed to good harvests in
many regions and a forecast decline in world grain prices that is
expected to raise commercial import capacity.
Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to experience the sharpest decline
in food aid needs due to a record grain harvest. The region's needs in
1996/97 are estimated to fall 40 percent to 3.4 million tons. Grain
production is up significantly in Southern Africa due to expanded
plantings and favorable weather; as a result, 1996/97 food aid needs
are estimated at just over 400,000 tons, compared with 1995/96 receipts
of about 800,000 tons. The regions two largest food aid recipients in
1995/96 Angola and Mozambique, have had dramatic recoveries in grain
production due to the end of civil wars that had plagued these
countries for nearly two decades. East Africa's 1996/97 needs declined
by almost half from last year's estimates. Output in Ethiopia has
surged in the last couple years due to an end in the civil war, major
policy reforms, and favorable weather conditions.
user fees
Mr. Skeen. Update the user fee table that appears on page 169 of
last year's hearing record to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and
fiscal year 1997 estimates.
Response. The following is a table that shows our user fee
receipts.
USER FEE RECEIPTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988....................................................... $49,000
1989....................................................... 140,000
1990....................................................... 312,000
1991....................................................... 338,000
1992....................................................... 327,000
1993....................................................... 312,000
1994....................................................... 425,000
1995....................................................... 339,000
1996....................................................... 353,000
1997 estimate.............................................. 350,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
internet information dissemination
Mr. Skeen. As you move toward greater use of the Internet to
disseminate data and reports, how will your user fees and publication
costs be impacted.
Response. All ERS situation and outlook reports have been available
on the Internet since 1995 and our other periodicals and many of our
research monographs are available now. Our experience has been that the
Internet is only a partial substitute for distribution of printed
reports--many agency customers do not have access to the Internet and
others with access still want and need the printed products. And the
Internet has made many more customers aware of our outputs.
Accordingly, our publication costs are essentially unchanged. User fee
income peaked in 1994 as the decrease in fees from customers that have
switched from printed reports to electronic copies on the Internet have
not entirely been offset by sales to new customers generated by
Internet publicity.
pesticide data program
Mr. Skeen. In addition, update the Pesticide Data Program table
that appears on page 169, to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and
fiscal year 1998 estimates.
[The information follows:]
ERS PESTICIDE DATA PROGRAM (1991-98)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousand Staff
Fiscal year dollars years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991.............................................. 1,900 20
1992.............................................. 1,900 19
1993.............................................. 1,750 18
1994.............................................. 1,200 11
1995.............................................. 1,200 11
1996.............................................. 0 0
1997 estimate..................................... 0 0
1998 estimate..................................... 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
environmental quality incentives program
Mr. Skeen. Your agency conducts an ongoing research program related
to USDA conservation and water programs. Last year you said that your
agency planned on working with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service and the Farm Services Agency to insure that the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) rules are designed to maximize
environmental benefits per dollar expended. Please report on how ERS
contributed to the EQIP rulemaking.
Response. ERS was an active participant on the interagency-
interdepartmental work group that developed EQIP rulemaking issues and
options that were presented to the Secretary of Agriculture. ERS took
the lead in developing two decision memoranda that related directly to
the ability of EQIP to maximize environmental benefits per dollar
expended. The first of these addressed what process USDA would use to
allocate EQIP funds across the various and competing conservation needs
of the Nation. We stressed that regardless of the exact process used,
it was essential that at some point comparisons of relative
environmental cost-effectiveness of funding decisions be made from a
national perspective to insure that the program was purchasing the most
overall environmental improvement. The option recommended by the work
group called for States, with input from local work groups, to annually
propose EQIP priority areas for funding. The proposals would be
prioritized by a national interagency-interdepartmental review team.
The review team's recommendations would be made to the Chief of NRCS
for approval of funding with FSA concurrence. States would then carry
out program delivery within funded priority areas using a process to
rank producer applications for environmental cost-effectiveness. This
two-state targeting process is obviously more complicated than the
single-state process used for the CRP. Under the CRP, conservation
practices are mainly limited to permanent grass or tree cover. This
simplifies the prioritization process in that producer bid comparisons
need only consider differing environmental vulnerability and contract
costs. In the case of EQIP, the prioritization process also needs to
take into account the differing costs and effectiveness of a multitude
of crop and livestock practices which can vary from one location to
another. Because the priority area proposal process was new to the
States and there was little time to prepare extensive EQIP proposals
for 1997, NRCS opted to determine State funding allocations for 1997
based primarily on a national rating system incorporating 26
environmental and other factors.
The second decision memorandum developed by ERS addressed how the
performance of EQIP would be evaluated including the criteria for
evaluation, who would do the evaluation, how often evaluation would be
performed, and how the results of the evaluation would be used.
Maintaining program efficiency over the life of the program requires
periodic assessment of program performance using various indicators.
Redirecting and enhancing program activities and efforts over time is
made possible by effective program evaluation. ERS also worked with
NRCS to develop the rating process for use in prioritizing EQIP
priority area proposals.
eqip rule improvements
Mr. Skeen. Could the EQIP rules be improved? If so, how?
Response. We believe that the rules the Department is establishing
for EQIP operation are consistent with achieving an environmentally
cost-effective program. The challenge lies in the quality of the
information gathered to inform annual EQIP funding decisions and the
possibility of moving away from historic State cost-share funding
allocations when indicated by the national prioritization process.
Because the EQIP priority area proposal funding process was new and
there was little time for the States to prepare extensive EQIP
proposals for submission to the national office for 1997, NRCS judged
that the proposals they received could not be used to exclusively
determine 1997 EQIP funding allocations. Instead, they based their 1997
State funding allocations primarily on a formula that incorporated 26
national environmental and other factors. An adjustment constraint was
also placed on the formula such that the 1997 EQIP funding allocation
to a State could not be significantly less than the historic allocation
of cost-share funds received by the State. For future years steps can
be taken to improve the quality of the information contained in State
priority area proposals so that they can play a major role in EQIP
funding decisions.
eqip analysis
Mr. Skeen. Have you conducted an analysis on this program: If so,
what did you find?
Response. Because 1997 is the first year of real program operation,
we have not yet conducted an analysis of EQIP.
water quality
Mr. Skeen. Two years ago in the House report, the Committee
encouraged ERS to work with the Farm Service Agency and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service in the area of pollution prevention. The
Committee also asked that you report on the progress of programs that
incorporated the goal of pollution prevention such as the integrated
crop management program and the water quality incentive program. The
report was to be completed by September, 1995, but at last year's
hearing you were unable to discuss results from the report because it
was still under review. For the record, summarize the results of this
report.
Response. In this report, which was submitted to Congress in April
1996, ERS with ARS, FSA, CSREES, and NRCS, reviewed U.S. Department of
Agriculture programs that address water quality and pollution
prevention. The programs covered include the Agricultural Conservation
Program, Water Quality Incentive Program, Integrated Crop Management
Program, Colorado Salinity Control Program, USDA's Water Quality
Program, Conservation Compliance, Conservation Reserve Program, Wetland
Reserve Program, and Integrated Farm Management Program Option. The
review contains: descriptions of the program of activity; legislative
and administrative history; statistical summaries on program
enrollment, practices installed, payments, etc.; and an assessment of
pollution prevention activities. Program summaries and progress are
based on information from a variety of sources, including published
statistical summaries, ERS program assessments, and the findings of
other government and private research. A summary section reviews the
strengths and weaknesses of the voluntary approach towards pollution
prevention that is the basis for most of USDA's pollution prevention
programs.
Federal efforts to protect and improve water quality are
increasingly emphasizing prevention of water pollution from
agricultural sources. Controlling agricultural sources of pollution can
be difficult because it is frequently impossible to trace the source of
the water impairment back to a particular source. In addition, because
farms differ by type of enterprise, by resource characteristics such as
soil type or proximity to water, by ownership patterns, and by
attitudes towards business risk, no single approach to pollution
prevention or water quality will work for all farmers in any region.
Instead multiple approaches are needed.
In FY 1994, the USDA spent an estimated $3.5 billion on voluntary
resource conservation and other environmental programs and activities,
many of which address water quality. USDA uses six broad approaches to
achieve conservation and environmental goals: technical assistance and
education; financial assistance such as cost-sharing; public works
projects; rental and easement programs; data and research programs; and
programs ``linked'' to commodity programs.
Typically, one or two of these approaches are evident in the many
programs and activities USDA uses to address water quality and
pollution prevention. For example, the Agricultural Conservation
Program, and the Colorado Salinity Control Program provided technical
assistance and cost-sharing for practice installation. Rental and
easement programs--primarily land retirement programs--pay farmers to
take land out of production and place it in conservation uses and
provide technical assistance to help manage retired land.
Technical assistance plays a crucial role in programs that are
``linked'' to commodity programs, such as conservation compliance.
Conservation compliance requires that any lands classified as highly
erodible must be farmed using an approved conservation system in order
to retain eligibility for USDA program benefits.
USDA research programs support the other five approaches. R&D
activities include: research on new and alternative crops and
agricultural technologies to reduce agriculture's adverse impacts on
water resources; research that estimates the economic impacts of
policies, programs, technologies designed to improve water quality and
prevent pollution; and environmental and conservation data collection.
USDA also administers competitive grants and coordinates conservation
and water quality research conducted by State Agricultural Experiment
Stations and Land Grant Universities.
The progress of USDA's pollution prevention programs, in terms of
water quality improvements, is often difficult to measure. For non-
targeted programs, water quality monitoring is impractical, and
noticeable improvements in water quality are unlikely, particularly in
the short run. Of the geographically targeted programs, the Colorado
River Salinity Control Program is the only one that is showing some
measure of water quality protection. For other targeted projects, water
quality monitoring is inadequate for tracking changes in quality that
might result from USDA efforts. In those cases where adequate
monitoring has been established in a project area, more time must pass
before any trends in water quality can be expected to be detected. One
of the findings of past watershed projects is that changes in water
quality can be detected only after a sufficiently long period of time.
Recent research indicates that technical and financial incentive
structures for most of USDA's pollution prevention programs are
limited. Experience suggests that a mix of education, technical, and
financial assistance offered over an extended period of time is
necessary to encourage farmers to adopt alternative management systems.
Yet most USDA programs offer only one or two of these types of
assistance. The Hydrologic Unit Area projects and Demonstration
Projects of the Water Quality Program started out with the most
balanced mix of education, technical, and financial assistance of all
USDA's targeted programs. However, since 1993, the amount of financial
assistance made available to these projects has dropped to zero.
Research and experience with other projects and programs indicates that
education and technical assistance by themselves are inadequate for
encouraging farmers to adopt most of the kinds of practices necessary
to improve water quality.
Given the current limits in the offered incentives, producers tend
to adopt new practices solely on the basis of profitability, rather
than for reasons of stewardship. Evidence suggests that producers
generally do not consider local water quality to be a concern. Making a
strong linkage between production activities and personal health would
be necessary to get farmers to adopt alternative practices that reduce
net returns. Targeting programs to geographic areas with known problems
increases the likelihood of success. Targeting raises the level of
local involvement and concern, increases program cost-effectiveness,
and increases the probability that water quality protection will be
achieved. Newer USDA programs such as the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program and the new Conservation Reserve Program signup
emphasize greater use of targeting for environmental problems.
data purchases
Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 170 of last
year's hearing record showing data purchases, to include fiscal year
1996 actuals and estimates for fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
Response. Following is a table that shows our data acquisition
purchases.
Data acquisition purchase
Fiscal year Thousand dollars
1989.................................................... $3,527
1990.................................................... 4,806
1991.................................................... 5,960
1992.................................................... 5,453
1993.................................................... 6,237
1994.................................................... 3,011
1995.................................................... 2,819
1996.................................................... 2,844
1997 estimate........................................... 4,000
1998 estimate........................................... 4,000
cooperative marketing of grain
Mr. Skeen. A report on cooperative marketing associated with United
States and Canadian grain for exports was also under review at this
time last year and you were unable to summarize the study results. For
the record, summarize the results of this study.
Response. The Secretary submitted the report to Congress in
December last year. I am pleased to summarize the results of the study.
The report concluded that a cooperative marketing venture would
require considerably more compatibility of institutions, laws, and
economic structures than currently exists. Contrasting systems of
highly controlled grain marketing by the Canadian Government and the
Canadian Wheat Board and the relatively unregulated open-market system
within the United States pose a significant obstacle to a cooperative
venture. Levels of government support for agriculture have declined in
both the United States and Canada; nonetheless, significant differences
in marketing institutions and regulatory environment remain.
Significant differences in grain quality standards and varietal
controls, cleaning requirements, blending restrictions, transportation
regulations and systems, and pricing practices also exist. A U.S.-
Canada wheat exporting cooperative would require a commitment from
producers in both countries for price pooling arrangements, as well as
compatible rules and regulations. Even with commitments on pricing and
regulations, studies of international commodity cartels indicate that
they rarely sustain their effectiveness in the long run.
congressionally mandated studies
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a list of all Congressionally mandated
studies that your agency performs.
Response. We carry out several recurring Congressionally mandated
studies that include an annual report on trends in family farm
operations (7 U.S.C. 2266); an annual global assessment of food
production and needs and planned programming of food assistance for the
coming year (7 U.S.C. 1736); an annual report on foreign ownership of
agricultural land (7 U.S.C. 3504); annual estimates of costs of
production for wheat, feedgrains, cotton, and dairy commodities (7
U.S.C. 1441); a monthly table of farm to retail price spreads and two
annual reports on food costs, price spreads, and marketing costs (7
U.S.C. 1622); and annual and bi-monthly reports on foreign agricultural
trade of the United States (13 U.S.C. 301).
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementing Bill
mandates a biennial report on the performance and impacts of NAFTA with
a specific focus on commodities affected by the agreement, investment
in agriculture and rural communities, employment impacts, and any other
information the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be important
(Subtitle B--Agriculture). The first of these biennial reports was due
March 1, 1997. ERS has an established NAFTA monitoring task force and
has already issued six monitoring reports that have reported on the
same factors as the biennial report. The first biennial report for
Congress is now in the clearance phase.
At this time, we are also actively working on four one-time studies
requested by Congress. The report mandated by Section 650 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 to assess the
availability of credit in rural areas for agriculture, housing, and
rural development has been completed by ERS and is going through final
Departmental clearance. We are conducting a study as mandated under
Title I, Section 15, of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 regarding the potential impact of World Trade Organization
obligations under the Uruguay round that grants access of additional
cheese to the United States. The report on this study is due June 30,
1997. We are managing the sustainable agriculture economic impact study
congressionally mandated under Title XVI, Subtitle B of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. This study is being
conducted in collaboration with six land grant universities, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Cooperative State Research
Education, and Extension Service and is now near completion. We are
also conducting a study in cooperation with the Natural Resources and
Conservation Service on conservation tillage as directed by the House
and Senate 1997 Appropriations Bill Reports. We expect to complete this
study by the end of 1997.
The study to investigate the advantage and disadvantages of
marketing grain in a cooperative exporting venture with Canada that was
requested by the Senate Committee on Appropriations in their 1995
Committee Report was completed by ERS and transmitted to Congress in
December 1996.
nutrition education
Mr. Skeen. ERS is assisting the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service and the Food and Consumer Service in
an evaluation of a joint Extension/WIC nutrition education initiative.
Please report on the status of the project.
Response. Under this 3-year FY 1993 initiative, 18 Cooperative
Extension System projects were competitively awarded funding for the
development of community nutrition education programs. ERS met with the
project leaders on several occasions to provide guidance and technical
assistance on evaluation strategies. ERS submitted a first-year
progress report in August 1995. Following that, ERS met with project
directors at a conference to discuss progress and ways to improve the
evaluation with appropriate statistical analyses, using control/
comparison groups, and reporting results in a standard manner.
The projects have implemented a variety of innovative educational
techniques to address the nutritional needs of hard-to-reach
populations. The first year reflected substantial progress in enhancing
interagency cooperation between WIC and Extension at the local level,
fulfilling a primary objective of this initiative to strengthen
referral networks and improve program efficiency. Many projects have
already reported positive changes in either dietary intake, infant
feeding, and/or food preparation behaviors. ERS will prepare a summary
report after all projects are complete and individual project reports
are submitted.
food program delivery
Mr. Skeen. Has ERS done research on how efficiently USDA food
programs are delivered?
Response. Yes, USDA is the federal leader in the movement to use
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) technology for assistance programs.
In addition to lowering delivery costs, EBT is expected to reduce the
stigma associated with food stamp participation and use. Since an
estimated 30-40 percent of eligible households do not participate in
the program, a change in the propensity to enroll could have large
budgetary consequences. ERS is studying how EBT might affect Food Stamp
Program participation rates and the Food Stamp Program budget.
In addition, a current ERS project looks at the commodity
procurement operations of USDA/FSA. The National School Lunch Program
is the largest client for those operations, but commodities are also
procured on behalf of other USDA food programs. The research focuses on
USDA product specifications, inspection requirements, and labeling
rules; it also covers auction methods used to obtain supplies from
competing vendors. The project to be completed by Summer 1997, will
evaluate the likely effects of changes in USDA procurement methods.
economic conditions and food programs
Mr. Skeen. How closely is the need for WIC, Food Stamp, and Child
Nutrition Programs tied to economic conditions?
Response. The Food Stamp Program is the largest of USDA's food-
assistance programs, accounting for almost two-thirds of total food-
assistance expenditures. As an entitlement program, all people meeting
the program's eligibility requirements are automatically entitled to
assistance. Participation in the Food Stamp Program is usually
inversely related to the Nation's economic health. For example, from
fiscal 1989 through fiscal 1994, average monthly participation rose
from less than 19 million to 27.5 million due to rising poverty rates,
the economic recession, and declining median family incomes.
Participation in the Food Stamp Program decreased in both fiscal 1995
and 1996 as economic conditions improved.
Participation in the National School Lunch Program, which accounts
for the majority of total outlays for the child nutrition programs, has
been relatively stable in recent times. Changes in the number of free
and reduced-price meals served correlates roughly with the poverty
rate.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) provides food, nutrition counseling, and access to
health services for low-income women, infants, and children. Applicants
must meet income and ``nutritional risk'' eligibility criteria to
qualify for program benefits. Unlike the Food Stamp and National School
Lunch Programs, WIC is not an entitlement program and has been limited
by the funds appropriated each year. WIC has never served more than 75
percent of the eligible population, despite increases in funding over
the past decade. An economic downturn would increase the size of the
eligible population lowering the coverage rate if funds were held
constant.
Not all people who are eligible for a food assistance program
actually apply. There are a number of reasons for nonparticipation.
Some people are unaware of the program or presume they are not eligible
for benefits, others feel that the benefits are not worth the effort to
obtain, while still others may not participate because of the perceived
stigma. In 1994, about 71 percent of all eligible persons, and 69
percent of all eligible households participated in the Food Stamp
Program. These participating households received 81 percent of total
potential food stamp benefits. Each school day in fiscal year 1996,
about 58 percent of all children in the participating schools and
resident childcare institutions, participated in the School Lunch
Program. An estimated 80 percent of the WIC eligible population would
participate if the program was fully funded.
welfare reform
Mr. Skeen. What is the effect of welfare reform on USDA food
programs?
Response. The Act's biggest changes are to the Food Stamp Program,
which include the denial of food stamp benefits to most legal
immigrants, the requirement for able-bodied adults to meet new work
requirements, and across-the-board cuts in food stamp benefits. States
now have the option of operating a simplified Food Stamp Program for
households in which all members participate in the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families program (TANF). Under the simplified program, States
may determine food stamp benefits using TANF rules which may be more
restrictive than Food Stamp Program rules, regular food stamp rules, or
a combination of the two. A requirement of the Act is that the State's
simplified programs may not increase Federal food stamp costs.
Other food-assistance programs, including the School Breakfast
Program, the Summer Food Service Program, Child and Adult Care Food
Program, will be impacted to a lesser degree. In addition, States now
have the option to provide or deny most immigrants benefits from the
WIC, Summer Food Service Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program,
Commodity Supplemental Food Program, TEFAP, and the Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations.
The net effect of these changes will be a reduction in Federal
spending for food assistance. Estimates from the Congressional Budget
Office project that the Act will lower spending in the Food Stamp
Program, child nutrition programs, and the food donation programs by
about $30 billion over the 1997-2002 period. However, these are
estimates, since there is still much uncertainty about how States will
use their new found flexibility and how strict the Federal government
will be in enforcing work requirements in locations with high
unemployment. In addition, the Food Stamp Program will be indirectly
affected by the Act's changes to other welfare programs. Since food
stamp benefits generally rise as a household's income falls, a
reduction in cash assistance may increase food stamp benefits for
eligible households. Therefore, much of the projected Federal budgetary
savings from the new legislation will depend on whether welfare
recipients can obtain jobs that make them self-sufficient.
haccp compliance costs
Mr. Skeen. At last year's hearing you indicated that the Food and
Consumer Economic Division would report in December 1996, on the
findings from an evaluation of HACCP compliance costs in meat slaughter
and processing establishments. The purpose of this effort was to model
how alternative pathogen control strategies alter plant costs since
primary cost data was not collected. What are the findings of this
report?
Response. Our analysis was based on cost information supplied by
FSIS, regulatory requirements stated in the preliminary and final
versions of the HACCP rule, and Census data. We found that the
regulatory compliance costs of the final HACCP rule were about 50
percent of those associated with the proposed HACCP rule. We also found
that the cost impacts of the proposed HACCP rule were lower for single-
species, new multi-species plants, high-volume plant costs were lower
than low-volume plants, and single-process plant costs were lower than
multi-process plants. More generally, we found that the preliminary
HACCP rule had lower larger plants costs impacts than smaller ones.
However, by substantially changing those regulatory requirements that
provided only marginal food safety benefits, FSIS greatly reduced the
cost advantage enjoyed by large plants in the final HACCP rule. We
concluded that it would be difficult to distinguish the impact of HACCP
costs on firm profitability or survival from the natural economic
forces affecting the industry.
follow-up on haccp costs
Mr. Skeen. As follow-up to its HACCP study, is ERS collecting data
on the impact of HACCP on actual costs incurred by meat processors and
on livestock and or meat prices?
Response. Data on the costs incurred by meat processors resulting
from HACCP would be a valuable input for evaluating the effects of food
safety inspection. ERS currently has no plans to conduct such a survey.
ERS's research on production in the slaughter and processing sectors is
planned in coordination with Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
This research relies heavily on the Census of Manufacturers obtained
from the Bureau of Census and to a more limited extent on program
operation data number of inspectors, inspector hours, and food safety
violations from FSIS. The Census of Manufacturers data provide a
comprehensive snap-shot of slaughter and processing plants, but are
less valuable for tracking the incidence of policy through time because
data are collected so infrequently.
costs in the meat industry
Mr. Skeen. Last year your agency reported preliminary findings on
the Food and Consumer Economics Division's study of changes in costs in
the meat and poultry industries. Have the preliminary results discussed
last year changed with further analysis?
Response. The study found that there are economies of scale in meat
and poultry slaughter, that is, larger plants have lower per animal
slaughter costs than smaller plants. Moreover, changes in product mix,
toward boxed beef and pork, have favored large plants because of scale
economies in those operations. These economies are not large, as large
slaughter plants can deliver products to retailers for costs only 3-5
percent below small plant costs, but the scale economies are important,
as production shifted sharply over time to lower cost large plants.
Finally, the evidence also suggests that the current largest plants
would not realize lower costs by becoming larger still; currently, the
largest plants appear to exhaust scale economies.
slaughter plant models
Mr. Skeen. Also, describe how the red meat and poultry slaughter
plant models are being used.
Response. The red meat and poultry slaughter plant models are being
used to estimate theimportance of scale economies in slaughter and to
identify the role of scale economies in accounting for changes in
industry concentration. In the future, they can be used to estimate the
effects of changes in factor prices, such as wage rates or livestock
prices, on wholesale beef and poultry prices.
benefits and costs of haccp
Mr. Skeen. Your agency is collaborating with FSIS, FDA, and CDC to
evaluate the benefits and costs of using HACCP approaches to improve
food safety. When will the results of this evaluation be available?
Response. ERS has recently completed a study of the benefits and
costs of HACCP approaches to improve the safety of meat and poultry
products. The study considered several different scenarios on how the
application of HACCP techniques to meat and poultry inspection would
lead to lower levels of foodborne pathogens and prevent illness and
deaths from pathogen-related diseases. The benefits of reducing the
levels of pathogens subject to control under HACCP include the savings
in medical costs and lost productivity as illnesses related to
pathogens in meat and poultry products are reduced. The study also
evaluated the implementation and compliance costs of HACCP and compared
them to the expected benefits of pathogen control. Benefits and costs
were measured over a 20-year time frame.
The low and high estimates for potential benefits are due to the
current uncertainty is correct, the analysis shows that the new HACCP-
based program must reduce pathogens by 15 to 17 percent for benefits to
outweigh projected costs. If the high estimate is the correct estimate,
the new program needs to reduce pathogens by only 4 to 5 percent to
generate net societal benefits.
foodborne illness
Mr. Skeen. Last year you stated that ERS was looking at a range of
policy alternatives for reducing the risk of foodborne illness. What
conclusions can be drawn about policies such as consumer education
programs, safe food handling labels, and meat and poultry irradiation.
Response. Food safety and reduction of foodborne illness is
everyone's concern. There are many actions that consumers, retailers,
and food-service workers can take to reduce the likelihood of food
contamination or illness from microbial pathogens in meat and poultry.
These actions fall into three broad categories: time and temperature
control, proper cooking, and proper handling.
Since 1993 the USDA has required that all packaged meat and poultry
products include a label providing information on safe handling and
preparation. In addition, USDA has begun a number of educational
efforts to raise public awareness of the importance of safe food
handling and to provide information on how consumers can protect
themselves from the risks of foodborne illness, including an 800
hotline number.
If everyone adopted safe food handling and preparation practices
the risk of foodborne illness could be substantially reduced. To be
effective, labeling and educational efforts must change consumer
behavior, and this change in behavior must be continually reinforced if
the health benefits are to persist. Evidence indicates that labeling
and education efforts can have some effect in promoting safer food
handling and cooking practices, but no firm conclusions can be drawn.
Irradiation of meat and poultry products can also reduce pathogens
and prevent foodborne illness, but to date irradiated foods have found
only limited acceptance in the market, and only a few food products
have been approved for treatment by irradiation.
The Federal government, through the President's Food Safety
Initiative, is taking action to prevent foodborne illnesses through
application of HACCP techniques in meat and poultry processing. The
Initiative also calls for improving education among consumers,
distributors, retail and food service workers, and institutional food
handlers. Understanding and practicing proper food handling procedures
from the farm to table can reduce foodborne illness and reinforce the
efforts already underway to reduce food safety risks through
application of HACCP in food processing. No conclusion can yet be drawn
of the extent to which these education efforts can decrease the costs
of foodborne illnesses.
marketing opportunities
Mr. Skeen. Are there opportunities for agribusiness to create
markets for foods processed with special treatments for controlling
foodborne pathogens?
Response. Yes, there are opportunities. However, to turn the
concern into viable marketing opportunities for food with improved
safety characteristics, several necessary conditions must be met.
Limited sales in the health care and food service markets have occurred
from poultry products irradiated to reduce foodborne pathogens. Recent
testmarketing has also occurred in certain grocery stores of shell eggs
pasteurized to reduce the pathogen Salmonella enteritidis. To enter
such markets, agribusiness, first, must be able to identify and
anticipate the current and emerging consumer concerns and respond to
them with products addressing the concerns. Second, agribusiness must
understand consumer preferences for risk-reducing strategies. A strong
preference for self-control, through food preparation and consumption
practices, tends to limit, though not necessarily preclude,
opportunities for safer food. Third, the potential market size must be
sufficient to support viable operations. Markets for safer food may
grow over time as consumers become more aware of the importance of
safer food, and as the number of individuals susceptible to foodborne
illnesses such as the elderly and immuno-compromised grows. Fourth,
agribusiness must be able to recover added costs. This would not only
require efficient technology but also that a sufficient number of
consumers be informed of the benefits of safer food, have trust in the
information, and perceive the need for safer food. Fifth, market
institutions must support innovations. For example, incentives to
introduce safer food are stronger if improved and regular
characteristics can be distinguished from each other by consumers and
if truthfulness in product claiming is required by regulations.
budget request
Mr. Skeen. Provide a detailed breakout of your budget request to
the Secretary; the Secretary's request to OMB; and OMB's allowance.
Response. The ERS budget request to the secretary was $67,485,000.
The specific increase items in this request were $2,360,000 for pay
costs, $424,000 for inflation, $3,092,000 for relocation costs,
$1,500,000 for analysis of resource-conservation production practices,
and $7,000,000 for nutrition linkages to agriculture.
The Secretary's request to OMB for ERS was $54,971,000, and
included increases of $795,000 for pay costs, and $1,067,000 for
analysis of resources-conservation production practices.
The OMB allowance to ERS was $54,310,000, and included increase of
$795,000 for pay costs, $281,000 for analysis of resource-conservation
production practices, and $125,000 for GPRA measurement tools.
farm employment
Mr. Skeen. You estimated there was some reduction in U.S. farm
employment in 1994 and 1995, but expected an improvement in the
employment situation in 1996. Was this the case?
Response. There has been a small, 34,000 worker, growth in
agricultural employment since 1994, from 3,409,000 to 3,443,000.
Estimates of farm employment itself are hard to determine. The
Department of Agriculture has dropped its annual farm employment
estimates. When the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) conducts its
monthly Current Population Survey of households, however, its uses
households with agricultural workers as the basis for the 3.4 million
agricultural workers estimate. A more detailed listing of the published
BLS household data reveals agricultural employment data included some
agricultural service workers--198,000 in veterinary services, 803,000
in landscape and horticultural services, and 196,000 in other
agricultural services,--as well as 2,247,000 farm workers, Based on the
1990 Census, the BLS revised these estimates in 1994. The revised
series is not strictly comparable to previous estimates.
nafta monitoring
Mr. Skeen. The Commercial Agricultural Division is continually
monitoring the NAFTA agreement. Would you give us a status report?
Response. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between
the United States, Mexico, and Canada has operated for three years
since it went into effect on January 1, 1994. When assessing the impact
of NAFTA in relation of Mexico, it is important to point out that
opening of Mexico to both trade and foreign investment has been
underway since the mid 1980s. NAFTA has helped lock in the gains
achieved since the mid 1980s and has defined rules by which further
trade and investment can proceed.
There have been other factors besides the NAFTA agreement that have
influenced U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico since 1993. There has been
a slow devaluation of the Canadian dollar, a major devaluation of the
Mexican peso in late 1995 and a subsequent recession, weather anomalies
across North America, rapid economic growth in other parts of the world
in relation to Canada and Mexico, and a relatively strong U.S. economy
in relation to Canada and Mexico. These factors are interrelated and
with the exception of the drought in Mexico, have tended to slow the
growth of U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada while encouraging imports.
The United States increased its agricultural exports to Mexico and
Canada by $2.7 billion dollars between 1993 and 1996. The path
associated with Mexico was a major increase in 1994, a sharp decline in
1995 because of the peso devaluation, and then a strong gain in exports
again in 1996. U.S. agricultural imports from Mexico and Canada have
shown a steady upward trend throughout the 1993 to 1996 period,
increasing by $3.2 billion. The net trade surplus was almost $2 billion
in 1994 with a negative balance in 1995 and a rebound in 1996 to $1
billion. Overall, the U.S. had a cumulative net trade balance of $2.9
billion over the 3 years. Agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada
have increased from $8.87 billion to $11.59 billion in 1996. U.S.
imports expanded from $7.33 billion to $10.55 billion.
Our analysis shows that total U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico
and Canada in 1996 were about 3 and 7 percent higher, respectively, as
a result of NAFTA. Similarly U.S. agricultural imports from Mexico and
Canada were about 7 and 5 percent higher, respectively. NAFTA has
increased agriculture's share of total investment in all three North
American countries by small magnitudes. For the United States, we
estimate investment in the U.S. agriculture sector was 0.1 percent
higher as a result of NAFTA.
The impact on employment in agriculture and agriculturally-related
industries has been positive but very small, on the order of 0.1
percent. Total employment in the United States has increased by 10.3
million since the beginning of 1994, with farm employment up. While
there have been cases of specific job losses due to import competition
or the relocation of production facilities, the overall increase in
employment suggests that such losses have been more than offset by job
gains elsewhere in the agricultural or general economy.
We have had a NAFTA Monitoring Task Force in place since the
agreement went into effect and have published a series of reports, the
latest being ``NAFTA: Year Three'' which we released in October 1996.
This year, we had the additional responsibility to prepare the
Congressionally mandated biennial NAFTA report for the Department. We
have submitted the report for Departmental review and it will be sent
to Congress following that process.
rural jobs and income
Last year you provided a table showing the distribution of jobs and
income across industries in rural nonmetropolitan America for 1993.
Would you provide a more recent table for the record?
Response. Following is an updated table that shows nonmetro nonfarm
earnings and jobs by industry.
NONMETRO NONFARM EARNINGS AND JOBS BY INDUSTRY, 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of Share of Job growth
earnings jobs 1990-94
(percent) (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agri. services, forestry, fishing 1.2 1.8 21.8
Mining........................... 2.5 1.4 -13.5
Construction..................... 5.6 5.2 9.9
Manufacturing.................... 23.2 16.9 4.1
Transportation, public utilities. 6.3 4.2 7.6
Wholesale trade.................. 3.9 3.2 6.2
Retail trade..................... 10.9 17.0 10.7
Finance, insurance, real estate.. 3.2 4.4 4.4
Services......................... 18.7 22.2 14.0
Government....................... 18,7 16.5 4.5
--------------------------------------
Total nonfarm.............. 94.3 93.0 8.1
Farming.......................... 5.7 7.0 -6.1
--------------------------------------
Total nonmetro............. 100.0 100.0 7.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Calculated by ERS from data provided by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis.
national rural development partnership
Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the Rural Development Initiative
or 1990 and the Rural Development Councils that were established? What
kind of assistance is ERS providing the Councils and the National Rural
Development Partnership?
Response. The initiative has been continued by the Clinton
Administration and there are currently 39 Councils. The councils
continue to work on rural development within their respective States
and on a few select issues at the national level. ERS continues to pass
through funding for several of the councils via cooperative agreements.
In addition, ERS provides the partnership with briefings and
consultations and contracts, from time to time, with in-state
researchers to assist the councils.
foreign ownership of u.s. agricultural land
Mr. Skeen. How much U.S. agricultural land is under foreign
ownership?
Response. Foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land has remained
relatively stable from 1981 through 1995, varying slightly above or
below 1 percent of the privately owned agricultural land in the United
States. Foreign persons reported owning 15.1 million acres, or slightly
more than 1 percent of the 1.3 billion acres of privately owned U.S.
agricultural land--farm and forest property--as of December 31, 1995.
This represents a 899,744 acre decrease from the comparable 1994
period. The sources of this data are reports submitted to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture under the Agricultural Foreign Investment
Disclosure Act (AFIDA) of 1978. Under AFIDA, agricultural land is
broadly defined as all land used for agricultural, forestry, or timber
production.
Foreign holdings in 1995 by major land use were distributed as
follows: forest land, 50 percent of total foreign holdings; grassland,
pasture, and range, 31 percent; cropland, 16 percent; and non-
agricultural land, 3 percent.
Foreign persons from Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany,
Switzerland, the Netherlands Antilles, and the British Virgin Islands
accounted for nearly two-thirds of the foreign-held acreage. Japanese
nationals owned 3 percent of the foreign owned acres. The largest
number of acres owned by foreign nationals was in Maine; most of the
northern one-third of which is densely forested. Foreign holdings
account for 16 percent of Maine's privately owned agricultural land. In
addition, Maine in 1995 had 20 percent of total foreign-owned
agricultural land nationwide. After Maine, foreign holding are
concentrated along the Gulf Coast states and in the West, containing 32
and 34 percent, respectively, of all reported foreign holdings of U.S.
agricultural land.
Corporations owned 72 percent of the foreign held acreage;
partnerships, 20 percent; and individuals, 6 percent. Estates, trusts,
institutions, associations, and other legal entities owned the
remaining 2 percent.
buyout authority
Mr. Skeen. Do you plan to use the buyout authority provided in the
fiscal year 1997 appropriation bill?
Response. Yes, ERS used the buyout authority between October 1 and
December 31, 1996. The buyout was restricted to Grades 14 and above and
clerical employees. Three employees retired under the buyout authority
during that period.
senior executives
Mr. Skeen. ERS has one senior executive for every 63 employees,
about one quarter the Department average. The only USDA agency with a
greater concentration of senior executives is the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service. Can you explain why ERS
appears to be top heavy with senior executives?
Response. ERS has nine senior executive or SES positions. Two of
these positions are for the Administrator and the Associate
Administrator. A third SES position is for an employee on a special
budget project that supports all of the Research, Education, and
Economics Mission Area agencies. Five other SES positions are Directors
of ERS Divisions. The ninth SES position heads the Office of Energy and
New Uses, which became part of ERS under the Department reorganization.
All of the SES positions have received Departmental approval and are
consistent with both the Departmental Reorganization Plan and the USDA/
OMB streamline plans.
ERS is a scientific research agency that employs mostly Ph.D.
agricultural economists and very few support staff. The SES staff
manage a complex social science research program that requires, in
addition to management and leadership skills, a great deal of technical
expertise and professional stature.
other services
Mr. Skeen. Object Class 25.2, Other Services, indicates a $125,000
or 11 percent increase from 1997 to 1998. Please discuss the reason for
this increase.
Response. The increase relates to planned agreements with private
institutions for implementation of the FY 1998 ERS increases associated
with GPRA measurement tools and resource-conservation production
practices. We plan to develop agreements with the institutions to
develop survey instruments to implement GPRA requirements. We also plan
to improve our data collection efforts on a wide range of farming
practices, including livestock waste management, nutrient and pesticide
management, and irrigation management.
object class 25.2
Mr. Skeen. Provide a subobject class breakout of object class 25.2
for both fiscal years.
Response. Following is a table that shows the breakout for object
class 25.2.
OTHER SERVICES (OBJECT CLASS 25.2)
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training.............................................. 300 300
Agreements with private research institutions......... 311 436
Agreements with private contractors for agencywide
services............................................. 532 532
-----------------
Total........................................... 1,143 1,268
------------------------------------------------------------------------
credit for socially disadvantaged groups
Mr. Skeen. Has ERS done any research on how well rural financial
markets and lenders meet the needs of socially disadvantaged groups?
Response. The agency has not undertaken any research which
specifically addresses the question of how well rural financial markets
serve socially disadvantaged groups. Information on the characteristics
of rural borrowers is not generally available, and even less is known
about those who were unsuccessful in their attempts to acquire credit.
Nonetheless, ERS as examined the ability of commercial and subsidized
lenders to serve the needs of low equity farmers--a group which
includes many disadvantaged borrowers. Our research indicates that
there are limits on how useful credit can be in helping beginning and
limited-resource farmers establish sustainable businesses. Loans are of
limited use to those who cannot afford to borrow enough to acquire
commercially viable farms. As a result, while ensuring that socially
disadvantaged groups are treated fairly by rural lenders and financial
markets is an important policy concern, ERS research indicates that
credit programs cannot be relied upon to meet all of their development
needs.
rural credit study
Mr. Skeen. Has ERS completed the report to Congress on the demand
for and availability of credit in rural areas for agriculture, housing,
and rural development called for in the 1996 Farm Bill? If so, what are
your findings?
Response. We have cooperated with the Department's Rural
Development mission area and have solicited input from an
interdepartmental advisory panel, to examine the issues raised by
Congress in Section 650 of the Federal Agriculture Reform and
Improvement Act of 1996. Our draft report has been reviewed by the
Department's program agencies as well as the Department of the
Treasury, OMB, the Farm Credit Administration, the Small Business
Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Board, and others. The
report is currently being reviewed by the Secretary's Office before
being transmitted to the Congress. Since the report has not yet been
cleared by the Department, I am not able to discuss its findings or
conclusions in detail. However, based on our assessment of the
available evidence, rural America is not burdened with widespread
credit market failures. Nonetheless, the study provides evidence that
localized financial market imperfections exist in rural areas which
could be alleviated with targeted government intervention to assist the
affected borrowers and communities.
tax reform
Mr. Skeen. If Congress considers tax reform, is ERS prepared to
estimate the impacts on farmers and ranchers when specific details are
available?
Response. Yes, ERS has primary responsibility within the Department
for analyzing the effects of tax policies on farmers and rural America.
The agency provides economic advice and counsel on agricultural tax
issues associated with significant tax legislation or proposals to the
Department's policy officials and others. We regularly monitor
developments in the tax area and are prepared to analyze the
implications for farmers of fundamental tax reform.
ers performance in 1996
Mr. Skeen. The performance goals and indicators included in your
explanatory notes list performance indicators for 1996. How well did
you perform?
Response. ERS met and even exceeded most of the output goals listed
for 1996 in the 1998 budget submission packages. More important than
the numerics is knowing how ERS economic analyses provided through the
various venues improved decisions on important issues. ERS, in working
to find performance measures and indicators that capture and convey
this information, still finds narratives essential to explain how ERS
improves public and private decision making regarding agriculture,
food, the environment, and economic development. For instance, ERS in
1996:
prepared the Department's major reference report on the
Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996;
showed how nutrition knowledge and diet/health information
promote healthier diets and how nutrition intake changes as
consumers alter food purchases in response to changes in food
prices and personal income;
demonstrated that the Federal Government has a unique role in
supporting agricultural research that benefits multi-State
regions and that supports the missions of the USDA program
agencies;
provided analytic support for USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) systems rule and documented cost-of-illness analysis
for bacterial pathogens;
briefed Congressional staff on sanitary and phytosanitary
issues affecting international trade and provided technical
support to policy makers working on World Trade Organization
issues such as domestic agricultural support commitments and
technical barriers to trade;
demonstrated that because climate change will likely occur on
a gradual basis over several decades, agricultural producers
and agricultural technology providers will have opportunities
to adapt to the modified environment;
provided assessments of various proposals identified as
pending in the legislative or Departmental policy arenas
related to farm loan market efficiency, the earned income tax
credit, rural development block grants, and USDA's beginning
farmer programs; and
improved USDA rule-making by providing information of the
cost-effectiveness of the Conservation Reserve, the Wetlands
Reserve, the Environmental Quality Incentives, and other
conservation programs.
historians
Mr. Skeen. Do you still have a staff of historians to support the
Department?
Response. The agency no longer has a staff of historian. However, a
few researchers from that staff are still in ERS, working on different
issues.
national research council review of ers
Mr. Skeen. The National Academy of Sciences National Research
Council is overseeing a two year review of ERS. Please describe for the
Committee the nature of the Academy's review, including when the review
began, its scope, who is involved, the process, how the review is being
funded, and any preliminary results.
Response. ERS has asked the National Research Council (NRC) to
convene a panel of social science experts to assess the quality and
effectiveness of the ERS research program, its management, and
structure. Panel membership will be drawn from leading disciplinary
experts with backgrounds in university research as well as Federal
research management, some with direct experience in dealing with
problems of the food and agriculture system, some without. Drawing on
the richness of the panel members' knowledge as well as their
consultation with ERS and the range of relevant institutions, the
resultant report will identify general principles for improving the
quality and effectiveness of research in an intramural social science
research program directed to serve Departmental program needs. Included
in the scope of the panel's deliberations will be consideration of the
definition of appropriate quality standards for ERS research, use of
peer review, value of external advice, principles for research resource
allocation, enhancement of collaborative and interdisciplinary research
with other USDA and federal agencies, leveraging of research done in
universities and elsewhere in the Federal government, means of
fostering professional development in the analytical staff, and
effective dissemination of research results.
The NRC is expected to announce its selection of the panel
membership in March of 1997, and the panel should begin its work by
May. Completion would be expected in spring of 1999, with an interim
report in mid-1998. The contract with the NRC was completed in
September 1996 under the terms of Executive Order 12832, which
identifies the National Academy of Sciences complex as a sole source of
scientific advice, able to provide the appropriate ``measure of
expertise, independence, objectivity, and audience acceptance'' deemed
necessary in this case. The experts on the NRC panel serve without
compensation, under the terms of the Academy's Congressional charter.
agricultural economic information
Mr. Skeen. ERS is also conducting a study of the public and private
supply of and demand for economic information on domestic and foreign
agricultural performance and commodity markets. When will this study be
complete?
Response. ERS will complete its agricultural economic information
market study by mid-1998. Through this study we hope to address a
number of questions, including who our clients are, how they use
agricultural economic information, what other sources of information
they use, and what role this information plays in their decision making
process.
The study is being conducted in three phases. The first, which
began late last year, examines the public supply of agricultural
economic information. We are talking to producers of information in
four USDA agencies: the Economic Research Service, the Foreign
Agricultural Service, the World Agricultural Outlook Board, and the
Agricultural Marketing Service. The second phase consists of analyzing
the demand for information within the Department of Agriculture. The
study team has already interviewed a number of Assistant and Under
Secretaries, Administrators, Directors and Branch Chiefs to determine
whether, and how, various offices within USDA use agricultural
information. Next, a random sample of USDA analysts outside of ERS will
be selected and asked what agricultural information they use and how
they use it. In the final phase of the study, the team will turn to
individuals and groups outside of USDA to determine their agricultural
information needs and uses. We have already conducted one focus group
consisting of various types of information users and plan to continue
this process. Additionally, we will work with a cooperator to analyze
the private supply component of the agricultural economic information
market.
From this ambitious effort we hope to improve our understanding of
the information market so that we can continue to provide our clients,
both within and outside of USDA, with relevant, accurate, and timely
information related to food, agriculture, and natural resources.
ers support of usda policymaking
Mr. Skeen. Would it help ERS to improve its support of USDA agency
policy making if there was a Board of Directors comprised of the Heads
of USDA agencies?
Response. The REE mission area has established such a mechanism to
promote coordination and cooperation among research and program
agencies across the board. ERS certainly values the interaction that
forum can promote. At the same time, ERS has an obligation to
strengthen its relation with each agency individually because agency
missions vary and so therefore does the research support required.
Currently, ERS is working to inventory fully the work we do for more
than two dozen USDA agencies and to determine ways to improve linkages,
especially with reference to orienting the ERS core research program to
meet and, most importantly, anticipate program agency needs.
economic and physical science research collaboration
Mr. Skeen. How often does your agency collaborate with the
Agricultural Research Service? Do you think there are additional
opportunities to integrate the physical science research underway at
ARS with economics? Have you considered co-locating staff at ARS
laboratories?
Response. USDA reorganization has promoted ERS collaboration with
ARS, CSREES, and NASS generally. Formally, ERS collaborates with ARS on
a range of significant policy issues whose analysis requires
multidisciplinary work; major examples would be global change, water
quality, pesticide assessment, and natural resource management. On an
informal and ad hoc basis, ERS and ARS scientists increasingly find
opportunities to work together. The ERS Office of Energy and New Uses
has been active in promoting use of economic methodology in the
evaluation of ARS utilization work, collaborating with ARS laboratories
across the country. This month a group of senior ERS analysts will lead
the ARS senior management from across the country in a seminar aimed at
understanding the economic trends shaping the food and agriculture
industry in the US and around the world.
ERS and ARS believe there are additional opportunities for
collaboration, especially with respect to setting national public
sector research priorities. This work would most logically be carried
out in dialogue between the Washington, DC-based ERS staff and the ARS
senior program staff in Beltsville, MD, capitalizing on the ERS
expertise on national, aggregate level analysis. ERS might be most
useful to ARS laboratories outside Washington as a broker to identify
those with the relevant economic expertise and appropriate knowledge of
local conditions. Fifteen years ago, the ERS field staff located at
land grant universities (many in proximity to ARS laboratories) was
brought to Washington. At that time, ERS had some 1,000 employees, with
about half that many today. Sending analysts back to the field would
cripple the agency's ability to support Department-wide programmatic
and policy needs, likely without fully satisfying ARS requirements.
users of ers analyses
Mr. Skeen. Who are the primary users of ERS analyses, inside and
outside the government?
Response. The ultimate beneficiaries of ERS's program are the
American people, whose well-being is improved by informed public and
private decision making. ERS has identified policy makers and key
institutions who share that commitment and routinely make or influence
public policy and program decisions. ERS shapes its program and
products principally to serve these key decision makers: the U.S.
Congress; White House and USDA policy officials and program
administrators/managers; other Federal agencies and State and local
government officials, and domestic and international environmental,
consumer, and other public groups, including farm and industry groups
interested in public policy issues. ERS depends heavily on working
relationships with other organizations and individuals to accomplish
its mission. Key partners include: the National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) for primary data collection; universities for research
collaboration; the media as disseminators of ERS analyses; and other
government agencies and departments for data information and services.
ERS stakeholders are its customers and partners, its staff,
cooperators, and contractors, and most importantly American citizens
and taxpayers.
ERS maintains close contacts with its key decision makers and its
partners through formal and informal channels from collaboration by
senior officials to daily contacts between ERS researchers and program
managers in other agencies to formal participation in department and
government initiatives. ERS sought review of an early draft of its
strategic plan through a variety of venues including REE sponsored
listening sessions around the country, a session at the American
Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, and the ERS home
page as well as internal USDA review. ERS has consulted and will
continue to consult with the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
Education, and Economics Advisory Board. The current draft reflects
changes as a result of feedback. The review process, however, remains
ongoing. USDA will soon be sending the draft ERS strategic plan to
Congress for review and consultation. Future program evaluations from
stakeholders and changing internal and external environments will
result in updating and refinement.
price and income variability in the post-1996 environment
Mr. Skeen. In 1997, your agency will conduct research on the
potential effects of domestic and international policy changes on
commodity price and farm income variability. When can the Committee
expect to see the results of this research?
Response. Our research analyzing the effects of policy changes on
commodity price and farm income variability will be available to the
Committee early in 1998. This research is examining the impacts on
commodity price and farm income variability associated with two
different policy regimes--the 1990 Farm Act and the 1996 Farm Act. The
study is being conducted using Monte Carlo methods within the ERS Food
and Agricultural Policy Simulator model.
This research will provide useful insights into the new risk
environment under the 1996 Act. At face value, it is unclear whether
crop prices will be more volatile in the future than under past
policies and programs. Some policy-related changes--such as planting
flexibility and trade liberalization--are likely to reduce price
variability. Other changes, such as reduced stockholding by the
Government, would work to increase variability, and the impact of other
changes--such as the elimination of acreage reduction programs--are
unclear.
The outlook for price variability, combined with the elimination of
market-responsive deficiency payments, has implications for income
variability. In the past, deficiency payment rates varied inversely
with market prices to provide some degree of income stability to
farmers. Under the 1996 Act, production flexibly contract payments
remain fixed regardless of prices. When making production, marketing,
and financial decisions, increased attention will be placed on risk
management to deal effectively with year-to-year fluctuations in
income. Our research will quantify the implications for price and
income variability on investment, enterprise selection, marketing
practices, and business organizations in the post-1996 Farm Bill
environment.
china and world agricultural markets
Mr. Skeen. Briefly describe China's evolving role in world
agricultural markets.
Response. China has one of the world's largest agricultural
economies. For most major agricultural commodities such as wheat, rice,
corn, cotton, hogs, poultry, fruit, and vegetables, China ranks first,
second, or third in production, stocks, consumption, or trade. Since
economic reforms were initiated in the early 1980s, China's
agricultural imports and exports increased rapidly from $8.7 billion in
1986 to $24 billion in 1995. U.S. agricultural exports to China rose
from $.06 to $2.6 billion during this same time period. In 1996, U.S.
exports were $2.1 billion and imports $600 million. This does not
include significant trade through Hong Kong, which is difficult to
measure.
China has become a significant exporter of corn, soybeans,
vegetables, fruits, poultry meat, and ornamental plants in recent
years. This has often led to trade friction; for example, China's
exports of garlic to Korea, Japan, the U.S., and the EU. Increasing
consumption in China has been limiting exportable surpluses of some of
these commodities, particularly corn and soybeans.
Changes in government policy in the past decades have had dramatic
effects on China's agricultural imports. The current governor's grain
responsibility system which promoted grain self-sufficiency in 1995 and
1996 has had the effect of reducing PRC grain imports. Corn imports,
which had increased to 4.3 million tons in 1994/95, fell to 50,000 tons
in 1996/97. China's high barriers to agricultural trade, such as its
phytosanitary regulation on TCK smut in wheat, interfere with trade.
Regional disparities contribute to trade volatility. While North China
produces a surplus of corn, the South is in deficit, but the two areas
are now well linked by transportation.
ERS expects China's grain production to increase in the coming
decades but domestic demand will exceed supplies. Population and
economic growth along with preferences for more meat, eggs, and dairy
products will boost demand above supplies. For 2005, imports of 14
million tons of wheat, 1.5 million tons of rice, and 7.5 million tons
of corn are forecast.
dairy policy
Mr. Skeen. As part of your analysis of the 1996 farm bill you will
be looking at the effects of the changes in milk marketing orders and
the establishment of the Northeast Dairy Compact. What are the findings
of this research?
Response. The Department is currently working on the proposals for
the reform of the Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO). ERS, as part of
the Interagency Dairy Analysis Task Force (IDATF), has been working
with the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) as well as the Office of
the Chief Economist (OCE) in developing and reviewing proposals on the
aspects of order reform as well as the evaluation of the Northeast
Dairy Compact.
AMS has just released some preliminary order consolidation
proposals and some alternative pricing mechanisms. As the details of
these proposals are developed, ERS will work closely with AMS and IDATF
to provide the regional economic impacts on supply, price, farm income,
and consumer costs. However, milk marketing order reform is still in
the preliminary stages of development and the details of these
proposals are insufficient to provide any solid analysis of impacts.
ERS is currently developing analytical tools so that we are in position
to provide the analysis when these policies are more clearly defined in
the proposed rule to be published in December, 1997.
The establishment of the Northeast Dairy Compact is presently under
a court order to provide more detailed reasoning behind the
Department's finding of compelling public interest. Pending a positive
outcome of the court challenge for the compact, and the determination
of compact pricing levels, ERS will be analyzing the economic impact on
producers, consumers and government costs.
supply response under the 1996 act
Mr. Skeen. You will also focus on estimating potential changes in
farmers' planting behavior because of the removal of program planting
requirements. What are the findings of this research?
Response. Our approach to estimating supply response under the 1996
Farm Act is based on an analysis of farmers' use of normal flex acres
(NFA) for program crops between 1991 and 1995. This procedure provides
an estimate of how acreage responds to prices in a more flexible
environment. A regional approach is being taken, with supply response
for each region estimated by combining cross-section and time-series
data. At present, results from the North Central region are available.
Our North Central region analysis uses the example of a corn farm
with a 100 acre base. Combing the elasticities from the NFA analysis
with an acreage price elasticity of 1.11 and historical payment acres
with an elasticity of 0.17 provides an own-price elasticity of 0.26 for
the entire corn farm, evaluated at average planting levels. This means
that a 1-percent rise in corn prices would result in a 0.26 percent
increase in corn plantings, compared to the 0.17 percent estimated for
payment acres prior to the 1996 Act. As expected, our estimates show
that producers are likely to shift their plantings more readily between
corn and other crops on the bulk of their acres--primarily soybeans in
the North Central region--in the post-1996 Farm Bill environment.
As expected, compared to corn price elasticity, the cross-price
elasticity between soybean prices and corn acreage is slightly lower--
at -0.25. This estimated cross-price elasticity between soybean prices
and corn acreage, again evaluated at average planting levels, is
derived from the -1.75 estimate for corn NFA acreage and a -0.10 cross-
price elasticity calculated for the farm's payment acres. The estimate
means that a 1-percent rise in soybean prices would result in a 0.25
percent reduction in corn plantings, compared to the 0.10 percent
estimated for payment acres prior to the 1996 Farm Bill. In summary
with the removal of Program Planting requirements, we would expect corn
acreage to be more responsive than before to changes in corn and
soybean prices.
When other regional estimates are completed, the results will be
summed to estimate a national acreage price elasticity. These estimates
will be used to improve USDA's short- and long-term baseline
projections, and provide insights into producer behavior in the post-
1996 Farm Act environment.
food prices
Mr. Skeen. In the explanatory notes you state that abrupt and
powerful changes in significant supply and demand forces have directly
challenged your understanding of food price formation. Would you
describe this statement in further detail for the record?
Response. Industrialization of agricultural production and
distribution including vertical coordination throughout the food
marketing system is accelerating the consolidation of farms and food
marketing firms. The effect of these forces on wholesale and retail
food prices is not well understood. Often it is claimed that increasing
vertical coordination and concentration leads to market power by firms
and higher consumer prices. Some research suggests, however, that
consolidation, when driven by consumer demand, often means improvement
in the quality and variety of products. We need a better understanding
of the product attributes valued by consumers. For example, how much
would consumers be willing to pay for fat in frankfurters? How much, if
at all, do consumers value labels and a clearly defined standard for
organic foods? Better information about how the structure of food
distribution and production affects the marketing and price of food is
needed to gauge the effects of policy shocks like minimum wage
legislation on the retail food prices.
conservation reports
Mr. Skeen. The Natural Resources and Environment Division will
evaluate and synthesize existing research on how best to achieve water
quality and conservation goals. This will result in three reports. When
will these reports be released?
Response. The first report, Partial Interests in Land: Policy Tools
for Resource Use and Conservations (AER-744), has just recently been
released. Some of the major findings of this report are summarized in
the October 1996 issue of Agricultural Outlook.
The second report, on water quality programs affecting agriculture,
is scheduled for release in May. The report has undergone extensive
peer review from researchers in universities and other Federal
agencies. Authors are currently responding to reviewer comments to
strengthen the report. A summary of water quality and USDA water
quality programs will also be included in the upcoming edition,
Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators. Information about
water quality and agriculture is also available at ERS' website at
http://www.econ.ag.gov. A summary of the major findings of the report
will also appear in the May 1997 issue of Agricultural Outlook.
The third report, on agricultural conservation policies, is
currently on hold. ERS staff have been actively engaged in the
evaluation and implementation of rules and guidelines for the
Conservation Title of the 1996 Farm Bill. ERS has focused its energies
on this high priority task.
chemical use
Mr. Skeen. This division also plans to publish a comprehensive
report on chemical use in agriculture. When can the Committee expect a
copy of this report?
Response. NRED releases results of its research program on
agricultural chemical use in a number of published sources. Basic
survey data information is summarized in periodic AREI Update
publications. More detailed discussion of economic and policy factors
affecting pesticide and fertilizer use will also be included in the
Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators report due out this
Spring. ERS will publish the proceedings of the Third National
Integrated Pest Management Symposium Workshop, ``Designing Integrated
Pest Management Programs: Putting Customers First and Learning What
Works.''
Discussion of chemical use is also often included in ERS
publications on related topics. For example, relationships between
chemical use and water quality are included in ERS' upcoming water
quality report (see the above question). In this case, the area of
interest is not chemical use per se, but rather the impacts of chemical
use and the implications of these impacts for environmental and
agricultural policy design. The economics of adoption of IPM and
nutrient management are discussed in another upcoming ERS report on
sustainable agriculture and technology adoption. This latter report is
currently under peer review and is scheduled for release this summer.
Major findings of the report are summarized in the March 1997 issue of
Agricultural Outlook.
ethanol industry and fuel oxygenates
Mr. Skeen. As a result of extensive work on the ethanol industry,
ERS has developed a working model for predicting ethanol production for
use in supporting USDA's baseline process as well as risk assessment
and cost-benefit analysis of fuel oxygenates. What has been shown to
date?
Response. For ethanol modeling activities, ERS has procured monthly
data on fuel oxygenate, gasoline, octane, and energy input prices from
outside sources and combined those data with ERS data on corn, corn
oil, corn gluten feed, corn gluten meal, and distiller dried grains
prices. The resulting data set is being used to investigate the
economic relationships between these prices and the quantity of ethanol
produced, and to estimate the importance of these relationships
relative to each other. Thus far, the relationships between ethanol and
gasoline prices and net corn costs per gallon of ethanol have been
found to demonstrate a strong influence on ethanol production and use
decisions.
The EPA/DOE/USDA risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis group
has produced work on the effects of oxygenates, including ethanol, and
has focused on modeling micro environmental exposures to fuel toxics.
This analysis has shown that most toxic emissions to which people are
exposed are likely to be from exhausts. Ethanol and other oxygenates
reduce emissions of toxic engine exhaust. Thus, an ability to predict
fuel ethanol use will provide information on the amount of toxic
exposure and cancer risk avoided by using ethanol or other oxygenates
in gasoline.
rural manufacturers
Mr. Skeen. What are some of the problems that rural manufacturers
face when they compete in a global economy?
Response. The results of ERS's recently completed survey of
manufacturers suggest that rural manufacturers are not lagging urban
manufacturers in adjusting to heightened global competition, but this
adjustment is not without serious problems.
Rural plants are just as likely as urban plants to report that they
have improved their product quality and lowered production costs in the
past three years. While rural plants are slightly behind in the
adoption of new technologies and improved products, these differences
are largely accounted for by the types of industries that tend to
locate in rural areas.
The quality of available labor is the local problem that rural
manufacturers cited most often as a barrier to their competitiveness.
About a third of the respondents reported this as a major problem,
compared to about a fifth for the next most often cited problems,
environmental regulations and State and local taxes. Problems of
infrastructure and access to markets and information were cited far
less often. In some areas, however, particularly in the Great Plains,
the Delta, and remote rural areas, manufacturers cite problems in
attracting managers and professionals, access to training for
production workers, and access to airports.
president's biomass initiative
Mr. Skeen. Briefly describe the two projects you have in support of
the Presidential biomass initiative including the cost of each.
Response. In a collaborative effort with USDA, DOE is pursuing the
development and deployment of integrated biomass power projects that
couple dedicated energy feedstock production with advanced power
conversion technologies. Through this initiative, three cost-shared,
multi-partner projects were initiated in FY 1996. In total, by 2001
these projects could bring on line over 175 megawatts (MW) of renewable
biomass power, sustained by over 200,000 acres of dedicated energy
crops. The overall objective of these projects is to validate the
economic and environmental benefits of integrated biomass power
deployments, with a particular emphasis on the realization of benefits
in rural areas where development opportunities are scarce.
The first award under this solicitation was signed on May 6, 1996,
with Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation of Syracuse, NY, representing the
Salix Consortium. The Salix Consortium plans to integrate dedicated
short-rotation woody crops willows with power conversion via co-firing
with coal. Gasification tests will also be conducted. A major project
goal is to achieve an unsubsidized delivered cost of willow feedstocks
at less than $2 per million BTU by the year 2000. In the initial phase,
by 2001 a total of up to 47 MW of biomass power capacity will be
produced at three project sites, with a total of 6,000 acres of land
dedicated to supplying willow feedstocks to these applications. The
estimated USDA contribution to this project for phase I is $200,000
using Natural Resource and Conservation Service programs and
authorities and $1 million for phase II.
The Iowa project, sponsored by the Chariton Valley Resource
Conservation and Development, Inc., is focused on growing switchgrass
for co-firing or direct gasification. The goal of this project is to
merge Iowa's agricultural potential with long-term energy requirements
to develop a locally sustainable source of biomass fuel. The project
calls for 35 MW of electrical power production using 30,000 to 40,000
acres of dedicated switchgrass feedstocks. USDA's contribution is to
allow 4,000 acres of conservation reserved program land to be used for
demonstration purposes for growing switchgrass for the project.
The Minnesota Agri-Power Project, submitted by the Minnesota Valley
Alfalfa Producers, proposes to build an alfalfa processing plant
integrated with an advanced power plant system in Granite Falls, MN, to
provide a base-load electric power source and a competitively priced
source of value added alfalfa-based products such as leaf meal for
livestock. This project plans to use air blown, fluidized bed
gasification technology to process alfalfa stems and other biomass to
produce a hot, clean, and low-heating value gas that will be used to
power a combined cycle system. Up to 180,000 acres of land will be put
into alfalfa production in response to this project. USDA is not
involved in any explicit cost share on this project. However, ARS has
worked closely with the Minnesota Alfalfa Growers to enhance the
quality of the leaf meal as livestock feed.
Economic analysis has started as support to the initiative. ERS and
the University of Tennessee entered into a cooperative agreement with
DOE to analyze the economics of energy crops production. Energy crops
include switchgrass, hybrid poplar, and hybrid willow. An economic
model will be developed specifically to analyze the potential influence
of energy crop production on agricultural commodity prices and farm
income. Developing and implementing this analytical framework will
require an expansion of the University of Tennessee's Policy Analysis
System. The estimated total cost of this research is $85,000 to be
funded by DOE.
nutrition
Mr. Skeen. Research has shown that away-from-home foods have higher
levels of total fat and saturated fat and lower levels of cholesterol,
dietary fiber, calcium, iron, and sodium than home prepared foods. As
more and more people eat out, there is some concern that the nutrient
quality of diets will diminish. What can the Federal government do to
address this situation?
Response. Americans are becoming more aware of nutrition issues.
However, they seem to be less attentive to the importance of nutrition
when they eat out. Recent ERS studies have shown that foods prepared
away from home for children and adults are generally lower in
nutritional quality than foods prepared at home. One reason for this
may be that the nutritional quality of away-from-home foods is not
readily apparent or available. Another reason may be that consumers pay
more attention to taste and entertainment factors than to nutrition
when eating out.
The Federal government plays an active role in providing nutrition
education and setting standards for nutrition labels and claims. In
collaboration with USDHHS, USDA publishes nutrition guidelines, such as
those depicted graphically in the USDA Food Guide Pyramid, to help
consumers choose diets that meet their nutritional needs.
School meals are an important component in children's diets. To
improve the nutritional quality of school meals, USDA launched the
School Meal Initiative for Healthy Children. Providing healthy meals is
the first important step in improving children's diets. But no meal,
however healthy, will have an effect on health unless it is eaten. USDA
has developed a nationwide nutrition program, Team Nutrition, to help
schools implement the Schools Meals Initiative for Healthy Children.
environmental policies and trade
Mr. Skeen. Describe in further detail how environmental polices
will affect agricultural trade?
Response. In general, studies have found that environmental
policies signed to reduce pollution have not led to significant changes
in trade. The main reason for this is that the costs of environmental
compliance have tended to be small in relation to overall costs on an
aggregated sectoral basis and, therefore, there has been little change
in comparative advantage. However, these regulations may have
significantly affected some localities or commodities or may be more
significant in the future. For example, the Department's National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) examined the
short-term economic implications of banning methyl bromide (MB) for
soil and product fumigation. the NAPIAP assessment found that effects
on the United States would be costly because currently available
alternative control practices are less effective or more expensive than
MB. In the European Union, the Nitrate Directive attempts to restrict
the application of livestock manure and chemical fertilizers in areas
with high nitrate levels.ERS research has indicated that the Directive,
due to take effect in 1999, may significantly reduce livestock
production and exports by Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark.
agricultural institute in turkey
Mr. Skeen. What was the agency cost to assist Turkey in the
establishment of an Agricultural Economics Research Institute?
Response. There was no cost to ERS. We were fully reimbursed for
out assistance in establishing the Agricultural Economics Research
Institute.
gao reports
Mr. Skeen. Provide a brief description of the findings and
recommendations of the two GAO Reports listed in the explanatory notes.
Also, tell the committee the status of each.
Response. The objective of the GAO motor fuels report relating to
issues surrounding reformulated gasoline, oxygenated fuels, and
biofuels was to summarize results of existing studies relating to the
cost effectiveness of reformulated gasoline, assess the potential for
oxygenates to reduce the use of petroleum, and to summarize ongoing
federal research on biofuels. The conclusions of GAO were that the
extent and nature of air pollution in any particular area will be a
determinant of what pollution control measures will be most cost
effective. GAO concluded that oxygenates could displace about 3.6
percent of estimated gasoline consumption in 2010. GAO also concluded
that research in the Department of Energy and the Department of
Agriculture was reducing the cost of producing ethanol from both
cellulosic biomass and corn. The GAO motor fuels report which is
completed was informational and did not include specific
recommendations for follow-up. GAO investigators talked to ERS Office
of Energy and New Uses analysts. We felt GAO did not sufficiently
critique the cost effectiveness of the reformulated gasoline program as
reflected in the Department of Agriculture's review comments to GAO.
The objective of GAO for the report on statistical agencies was to
identify the statutory authorities establishing 11 federal agencies or
their activities along with the confidentiality and disclosure
provisions under which they operate, to review mandatory reporting
requirements, and determine the uses of statistical products the
agencies produce to support the administration of federal programs. The
GAO review included the Economic Research Service and the National
Agricultural Statistics Service in the Department of Agriculture. GAO
concluded that the statutory framework of the federal statistical
system is complex including statutes on confidentiality and mandated
reporting requirements. GAO also concluded that the agency products are
critical to the functioning of the Nation. The Economic Research
Service operates under an authorizing statute and two confidentiality
and disclosure statutes. GAO also listed five mandated reporting
requirements for ERS and an additional six statutes associated with
interagency and interdepartmental statistical information reporting
requirements in support of federal program administration. This GAO
report as completed, was also informational, and contains no
recommendations nor any departmental or agency review comments.
technical assistance
Mr. Skeen. What work are you doing for the Foreign Agricultural
Service in fiscal year 1997 for $4.0 million?
Response. We are providing technical assistance to establish the
capacity to provide timely, reliable agricultural situation and outlook
information and to conduct sound economic analysis in Bulgaria, China,
Mexico, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine. The activities have been
undertaken as part of the Emerging Democracies and Emerging Markets
Programs. ERS frequently works with other USDA agencies--such as the
National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Agricultural Marketing
Service--which assist countries in the collection of statistical and
market news data. Better information and analysis are necessary for the
functioning of market-oriented agricultural systems, for increased US
exports, and for sound investment decisions by American companies. The
Russian project was a highlight of the recent US-Russia Binational
Commission meeting, where Secretary Glickman reported to Vice President
Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin on the successful
completion of our joint work.
global climate change spending
Mr. Skeen. What is the total amount the agency spent on global
climate change in fiscal year 1996 and estimates for fiscal year 1997?
Response. ERS spent approximately $800,000 on global change
research in fiscal year 1996 and expects to spend approximately
$800,000 in fiscal year 1997. This level of expenditure is consistent
with budgeted amounts as reported in Our Changing Planet: The FY 1997
U.S. Global Change Research Program, supplement to the President's
Fiscal Year 1997 Budget. As described in Our Changing Planet, as of
1997 the global change program includes the following components: (1.)
Seasonal to interannual climate variability. (2.) Climate change over
decades to centuries. (3.) Changes in ozone, UV radiation, and
atmospheric chemistry, and, (4.) Changes in land cover and in
terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In 1996, ERS summarized findings of
its program on long-term climate change in ``Agricultural Adaptation to
Climate Change: Issues of Longrun Sustainability,'' AER-740. With this
phase of research completed, the research program has focused on the
potential impacts of changes in climate variability on the farm sector
and interactions between climate change, land use, biodiversity, soil
and water resources, and future world food needs. This focus means that
most of ERS research on global change is now covered under components 1
and 4 as described in Our Changing Planet.
ers offices
Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 181 of last year's
hearing record showing the breakout of budget and staff-years of ERS
offices to include fiscal year 1997.
Response. Following is a table that shows the budget and staff year
breakout for ERS offices.
ERS OFFICES BUDGET AND STAFF YEARS, FISCAL YEARS 1995-97
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
Offices/Divisions -----------------------------------------------------------
Staff Staff Staff
Budget years Budget years Budget years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Analysis Division......................... $16,677 179 $15,283 172 $16,398 172
Food and Consumer Economics Division................ 4,863 60 4,742 55 5,063 55
Information Services Division....................... 7,597 103 7,390 99 7,866 99
Natural Resources and Environment Division.......... 10,262 113 10,825 103 9,256 103
Rural Economy Division.............................. 9,245 118 9,866 105 9,623 105
Office of Energy and New Uses....................... 905 6 929 6 600 6
Office of the Administrator......................... 1,139 9 1,352 11 1,486 9
Administrative and Financial Management Division.... 2,789 37 2,740 40 2,817 40
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 53,477 625 53,127 591 53,109 591
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
credit survey
Mr. Skeen. What were the results of a 1995 survey of credit market
experiences of independent businesses in urban and rural communities?
Response. In the spring of 1995, the National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB) surveyed over 3,600 member firms concerning
their experience with credit and financial institutions during the
previous three years. These data are still being analyzed, but
preliminary results suggest that rural firms are generally satisfied
with their local credit markets. Asked whether their primary financial
institution is a reliable source of credit, 49 percent of sampled rural
firms rated their lender good, compared with 37 percent of the urban
firms. Only 9 percent of rural firms, and 13 percent of urban
respondents, failed to eventually obtain a loan the last time they
tried to obtain credit. Surveys of this sort typically find that
availability of credit is the most important factor for small
businesses. But on this survey, few rural firms specified credit
availability as their most significant concern with the current
practices of their financial institutions. More firms complained about
interest rates, collateral requirements, and fees and service charges.
This result may reflect a contrast of a strong economy in 1995 to the
recession of a few years earlier. Most firms that are successful in
obtaining loans, can now afford to criticize loan terms. A plurality of
41 percent of the rural firms reported that bank loans were their
primary source of working capital, with 32 percent depending on
retained earnings. At 35 percent, retained earnings was the most common
source for urban firms, with 31 percent depending on banks as the
primary source.
sanitary and phytosanitary barriers
Mr. Skeen. The agency has an ongoing study that quantifies the
effects of sanitary and phytosanitary barriers on U.S. agricultural
exports. What are the latest findings?
Response. In 1996 the Economic Research Service participated in an
interagency effort to inventory questionable technical barriers to
trade in U.S. agricultural exports. The inventory was based on survey
responses from 50 Foreign Agricultural Service posts overseas and
reviewed by technical experts in regulatory agencies and private
company cooperators, shielding domestic producers from foreign
competition, and disputes among countries commonly arise when the
scientific basis or other rationale of a trade barrier is challenged.
The 1996 inventory includes 315 questionable issues in 63
countries, over 90 percent were considered questionable because they
violated one of the principles of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Agreement. About half the issues listed in the inventory have the prima
facie rational of protecting plant health in the importing country.
Measures imposed under the rationale of food safety account for about
20 percent of the issues. About 12 percent concern the health of
animals. On a dollar impact basis, technical barriers in the East Asian
region are estimated to account for nearly half of the impact on U.S.
agricultural exports. Technical barriers in Mexico, Canada, and Latin
America have the second largest impact on agricultural exports.
Processed products are the product category most affected by technical
barriers to trade.
trade impact of technical barriers
Mr. Skeen. The total impact of trade barriers was estimated at $4.7
billion in 1995. What was it for 1996?
Response. The total impact of trade barriers identified in the 1996
survey was $4.97 billion.
public and private r&d expenditures
Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 179 of last
year's hearing record showing the breakout of public and private
activities for basic, applied, and development research.
Response. The data reported in the table was compiled from various
independent sources and cannot be readily updated. Furthermore,
breaking down research allocation into basic, applied, and development
research is difficult as there can be substantial overlap between these
categories. Therefore, the numbers reported in the table should be
viewed as a general description of the types of activity performed by
each component of the U.S. agricultural research system. The general
description suggests that the public sector--USDA and State
Agricultural Experiment Stations--allocate a much larger share of its
research resources to basic, or pre-commercial research, while the
private sector places more emphasis on development research. It is
unlikely that these general tendencies change substantially over time.
The table is reproduced below in greater detail, but it has been
updated.
SHARES OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES DEVOTED TO BASIC, APPLIED
AND DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Applied
research research Development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS.............................. 54.4 37.9 7.7
USDA Total....................... 48.3 43.1 8.6
SAES............................. 45.2 47.9 6.9
Total Public..................... 47.3 45.4 7.3
Private.......................... 15.0 43.5 41.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Public research data are from CRIS, 1993; Private research data
from a 1984 survey reported in ``A Survey of U.S. Agricultural
Research by Private Industry III,'' Washington, DC: Agricultural
Research Institute 1985.
conservation reserve program differences
Mr. Skeen. How are the bid rankings and rental rate screening
procedures for the new Conservation Reserve Program different from the
old program?
Response. Nine CRP signup periods were held from 1986 through 1989
under the authority of the Food Security Act of 1985. These signups
were subject to mandatory minimum annual enrollment levels as set forth
in the 1985 Act. In an effort to meet these enrollment levels, USDA did
not rank bids for acceptance. Rather, bids were accepted as long as
ownership and land eligibility criteria were met, and the rental rate
requested by the producer did not exceed a USDA maximum acceptable
rental rate--MARR--established for the area. There was one MARR for
each area and this amount eventually became known to producers. As a
result, producers could receive rental payments in excess of prevailing
cash rents for enrolling less productive land. Also, MARR's were
sometimes set too high in relation to average cash rents, primarily in
the Great Plains, also contributing to overpayment.
In signups 10-12, held in 1991-92, the rental payment requested by
a producer was screened against a soil productivity-adjusted estimate
of the rent that could be earned on local comparable cropland. Bids
that exceeded this amount, adjusted for other costs incurred by
producers due to CRP participation, were rejected. The bid screen
amounts used in these signups were not related to the MARR's that were
uniformly applied within areas in signup periods 1-9. Eligible easement
bids, primarily filter strips, and wellhead protection bids that
survived the rental rate screen were automatically approved for CRP
enrollment. Other bids that survived the rental rate screen were ranked
for acceptance based on the ratio of an environmental benefits index--
EBI--to the government cost of the contract. In signups 10-12, the EBI
was comprised of seven coequal indicators--surface water quality,
ground water quality, soil productivity, conservation compliance
assistance, tree planting, Hydrologic Unit Areas identified by the USDA
Water Quality Initiative, and conservation priority areas. When
submitting a bid, producers were not informed of the rental rate screen
amount for their soil or how the EBI was calculated.
In signup 13, held in September 1995, the rental payment requested
by a producer was also screened against a soil productivity-adjusted
estimate of the rent that could be earned on local comparable cropland.
Unlike signups 10-12, the bid cap was known by producers prior to
signup. Bids that exceeded this amount were rejected. Applicants could
increase the likelihood that their bids were accepted by bidding less
than the bid cap for their soil. The bid acceptance process used in the
13th signup used a modified EBI compared with that used in signups 10-
12. The EBI was comprised of 5 factors: water quality protection--both
ground water and surface water, a maximum of 20 points--creation of
wildlife habitat--a maximum of 20 points--, control of soil
erodibility--a maximum of 20 points--, tree planting--a maximum of 10
points--, and a cost factor based on the annual rental rate requested
by the producer--a maximum of 30 points--. Environment priority--EP--
bids such as filter strips automatically received maximum environmental
factor scores. In addition States could develop their own EBI to be
used in place of the national EBI. Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and
Oregon, developed their own EBI.
Future signups will be operated similar to signup 13. However,
county-level soil rental rate caps have been updated to reflect local
cash rents over 1994-96 and the environmental benefit index will be
comprised of 7 factors: wildlife habitat benefits--100 points maximum--
; water quality benefits from reduced water erosion, runoff, and
leaching--100 points maximum--; on-farm benefits of reduced wind or
water erosion--100 points maximum--; long-term benefits of cover beyond
the contract period--50 points maximum--; air quality benefits from
reduced wind erosion--25 points maximum--; benefits from enrollment in
conservation priority areas--25 points maximum--; and a cost factor
based on the annual rental rate requested by the producer. The weight
of the cost factor will be determined following the signup.
distribution of flexibility payments
Mr. Skeen. One of the issues raised during the formulation of the
1996 Farm Bill concerns the distribution of production flexibility
payments. Please provide the Committee with estimates of the
distribution of payments based on farm sales, farm size, and state.
Response. The new legislation required a farm operator to have a
crop acreage base and to have been a participant in a farm commodity
program for at least 1 of the previous 5 years. Thus, the distribution
of government payments is not expected to change dramatically. Data
from the 1995 Farm Costs and Returns Survey show that government
payments were 4 percent of gross cash income. The average participating
farm received $8,225. Farms having sales over $250,000 received 31
percent of total payments and produced 47 percent of program
commodities. Almost half of the payments accrued to farmers in the Corn
Belt and northern Plains, where farms are predominantly cash grains.
Government payments were 6-7 percent of gross cash income in these two
regions. Another 17 percent of payments went to farmers in the Lake
States. Entities other than the farm operators interviewed in the FCRS
also received payments, but we have no data on the distribution of
payments to those groups.
We have no evidence that landlords and nonoperator landowners will
earn a larger proportion of government payments under the Farm Bill
than they did under the previous farm legislation. Land owners could
attempt to change the distribution of payments through renegotiating
leases to require that tenants give them a larger share of government
payments. Leases, however are subject to market forces and in many
cases tenants have substantial market power. Also, since Farm Bill
payments are scheduled to decline over the life of the legislation any
changes in leases would likely be temporary.
ERS anticipated the changes in the programs by adding several
questions to the 1996 Agricultural Resource Management Study in order
to monitor any changes. Questions specifically address the distribution
of government payments to operators and share-rent landlords, changes
in plantings, and changes in the management of the farm as a result of
the new legislation. Questionnaires are being enumerated now and data
will be available after June 1997.
effects of r&d on productivity, commodity prices, and the distribution
of farm income
Mr. Skeen. You have recently completed a report investigating the
effects of agricultural research. The Report found that between 1915
and 1985 the annual rate of return on investments in agricultural
research ranged between 35 to 60 percent. Did the report evaluate how
research has affected agricultural productivity prices, commodity
prices, and the distribution of farm income?
Response. The estimate of the rate of return to agricultural
research is based on the relationship between research investment and
agricultural productivity. The gains from improvements in agricultural
productivity--i.e., benefits from research--are shared broadly in
society among farm producers, the food processing and retailing sector,
and consumers. Although our report did not specifically examine the
distribution of benefits from research, other studies have shown that
in the long run, most of the gains from agricultural research are
passed on to consumers through lower food prices. Productivity gains
associated with research result in lower production costs for producers
due to newly developed efficient production techniques. Among the farm
sector, early adopters of successful new technologies earn substantial
benefits, while late adopters or nonadopters may become less
competitive producers. That is, early adopters benefit from lower
productions costs. As new technologies diffuse across all producers,
the widespread adoption of the more cost effective technologies results
in lower overall production costs which are passed on to consumers as
lower commodity prices.
economic impact on high quality environmental amenities
Mr. Skeen. Has the Natural Resources and Environment Division
estimated the economic impact of high quality environmental amenities
in rural areas?
Response. The Natural Resources and Environment Division has a
history of estimating the market and ``non-market'' economic benefits
of agricultural conservation programs, such as the Conservation Reserve
Program--CRP--, to better inform policy decisions about conservation
programs. Agricultural conservation programs often improve, not only
resources on the farm, but improve the environmental amenities in the
larger rural area. Improving the environment creates two major sources
of economic impacts. First, market activity is affected in a variety of
ways, such as a decline in expenditures for farm production inputs, and
the resulting effects on the local economy. Second, persons coming in
contact with the environment experience ``non-market'' benefits in the
form of better recreational opportunities and reduced health hazards.
To date, most of the analysis at NRED has focused on the benefits of
the CRP because it is believed that this program has profoundly
influenced the environment quality of rural areas. One study--Young and
Osborn--has examined market factors resulting from this program and two
studies--Ribaudo et. al and Feather and Hellerstein--have examined the
non-market benefits of an improved environment resulting from the CRP.
Work is currently under way to expand and improve upon these estimates.
More generally, studies illustrating how to measure the benefits of
improved water quality--Ribaudo and Hellerstein--and what these
benefits are for rural surface water--Crutchfield et. al--and rural
ground--potable--water have been accomplished. We would be happy to
supply you with more details about the research results or copies of
the full reports.
The Rural Economy Division of the ERS has recently begun an
analysis to classify U.S. counties into four categories based on a
ranking of the environmental amenities available in the county. At this
stage in its development, the natural amenities index is based on a
number of climatic and topographical conditions. Development of a valid
indicator is a first step to being able to identify the economic
impacts from environmental amenities of an area.
research on hypoxic zone in gulf of mexico
Mr. Skeen. Is your agency doing research on the hypoxic zone in the
Gulf of Mexico just off the Coast of Louisiana and Texas? If so, please
provide the Committee with a summary of the research.
Response. ERS is collaborating with scientists at USGS to evaluate
alternative nutrient management policies in the Mississippi Basin for
addressing the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. USGS is providing
the modeling of nutrient fate and transport, and ERS is providing data
on fertilizer use and other sources of nutrients in the basin. ERS will
identify critical regions in the basin for nutrient management, and
identify alternative management policies, including those involving
point sources.
national income accounts
Mr. Skeen. Please discuss with the committee how the national
income accounts would change if adjustments were made for depleting or
degrading the Nation's soil, water, and habitat resources.
Response. The Natural Resources and Environment Division has
released a report ``Accounting for the Environment in Agriculture''
which developed a framework for incorporating natural capital and
environmental goods into the existing national income accounts--U.S.
Department of Agriculture--1995--. Accounting for the Environment in
Agriculture. Technical Bulletin Number 1847. October--. As examples of
the potential scope of accounting adjustments needed in the
agricultural sector, the effects of soil erosion on agricultural
productivity and income, the economic effects of decreased surface-
water quality, and the depletion of ground-water stocks are presented.
Estimated adjustments to net agricultural income are in the range of $4
billion and have declined as a percentage of net farm income since
1982. About 85 percent of the adjustment is caused by agriculture's
contribution to the decline in surface-water quality while the
remainder is due to the impact of agricultural production on declines
in the stock of ground-water.
The report acknowledges the adjustments presented are incomplete.
Because the objective of the analysis was to illustrate some of the
adjustments necessary to improve the national income accounts, the
report considers a few of the key agricultural effects on the
environment. Other adjustments, including additional environmental
damages and valuing environmental services, are necessary to accurately
measure the impacts of agriculture on the national income accounts. For
example, because of data limitations, the report does not present
values for the benefits of landscape preservation or wildlife habitat.
On the cost side, the report does not examine how soil quality
characteristics, other than erodibility, affect productivity or
wildlife habitat. The authors also caution that national estimates may
mask significant regional or local problems. Estimated costs of erosion
in terms of lost productivity, for example, is not a significant
national problem, but may be a significant regional or state problem.
food related projects
Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of all ongoing and planned studies being
conducted in the food and nutrition assistance program area. Include a
brief description statement for each study and evaluation.
Response. We have several ongoing and planned research projects in
this area. ERS is conducting research to assess the impacts of
economic, social, demographic, diet-health information, and program
variables on the nutrition and health of low-income consumers including
program participants. This includes two broad areas of research: the
effects of these factors on diet quality and the link between diet
quality and health outcomes. For example, this research will isolate
the effects of changes in the Food Stamp and WIC Programs on nutrient
intakes of children, including iron-deficiency anemia, and on the rate
of low weight births among program-eligible women, both costly
nutrition-related outcomes. This research effort will also assess the
potential synergisms between food assistance and nutrition education in
improving dietary intakes. Additional research will explore the impacts
of diet-health-nutrition information on the overall quality of diets.
These projects will improve our ability to evaluate the impacts of
alternative and/or complementary strategies for improving the health
and economic well-being of low-income Americans.
All States have been mandated to implement Electronic Benefits
Transfer EBT systems for use in the Food Stamp Program by 2002. EBT
systems generally use some sort of credit or debit card technology for
the payment of approved food purchases. USDA has established the
feasibility of this technology and evaluated its effect on food
retailers, financial institutions and current recipients. But, there is
little evidence about how EBT will affect food stamp participation
rates. Conceptually, EBT should lower the stigma associated with
participation and increase the number of participants. Since
approximately 30-40 percent of households eligible for the FSP do not
participate, EBT has the potential to significantly increase
participation, and, hence, program funding needs. ERS is assessing the
impact of EBT on program participation and will forecast participation
and funding levels resulting from EBT implementation.
Another project assesses and develops strategies for combining
models of household economic decision making with models of
agricultural production and the general economy. Results will allow us
to better assess the impact of program changes including welfare
legislation on the food industry, the agricultural sector, labor
markets, and the general economy.
ERS is conducting research on the relationships among food
insecurity defined as an adequate food supply, income, food spending,
food assistance programs, and household socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics. This research will provide a basis for examining the
impact of welfare reform on food security.
costs of food research
Mr. Skeen. What is the total amount of money spend by ERS in this
area of work?
Response. ERS spends about $0.5 million per year in the food and
nutrition assistance area. This amount includes staff support for data
management and research activities.
food research coordination
Mr. Skeen. How is this work coordinated with the studies and
evaluation being conducted by the Food and Consumer Service to
eliminate overlapping or duplicative work?
Response. ERS and the Office of Analysis and Evaluation at the Food
and Consumer Service [FCS] have a mutual interest in conducting
analyses designed to improve our understanding of USDA's food
assistance and nutrition programs. Our analysts meet throughout the
year to discuss research issues and strategies, data needs and
availabilities, and how to address mutual research interests. Several
of our ongoing research projects are being conducted for FCS. This
includes our work on food security and the linkage between food
assistance programs and agriculture. In addition, FCS frequently
requests help from ERS analysts to provide technical reviews of project
proposals and draft research manuscripts.
progress in developing the ers strategic plan
Mr. Skeen. GPRA known as the Results Act, requires each executive
agency to issue, no later than September 30, 1997, a strategic plan
covering at least five years. In addition to a mission statement
grounded in legislative requirements, the plans are to contain general
goals and objectives that are expected to be outcome or results
oriented--such as to improve literacy--as opposed to output or activity
oriented--such as to increase the number of education grants issued--.
What progress is the agency making in developing its strategic
plan, including defining its mission and establishing appropriate
goals?
Has the agency identified conflicting goals for any of its program
efforts? If so, what are the performance consequences of these
conflicting goals and what actions--including seeking legislative
changes--is the agency taking to address these conflicts?
Response. In 1991, 30 years after ERS was established, the Agency
held a major conference of present and past policy makers--including
several Secretaries of Agriculture, Deputy Secretaries, and former ERS
Administrators--, industry and non profit organization representatives,
distinguished academicians, and ERS staff to consider the role and
future of ERS. That dialogue, and subsequent ones based on the
proceedings, led to a major 1993-94 program review. The resulting
``building block reports'' were the basis for discussion at senior
management level strategic sessions that resulted in development of the
first portions of the strategic plan, including the mission statement
and definition of customers and stakeholders. The building block
reports, subsequent strategic planning activities by each of the new
divisions, and the REE strategic plan combined to form the foundation
for the ERS strategic plan. The general goals to which ERS seeks to
contribute reflect its legislative mandate and the guidance of the
department. The first complete draft of the ERS strategic plan for the
reorganized ERS was completed in March 1996. A revised draft based on
review comments is now with the Department for review.
The agency found no conflicting goals among its program efforts and
seeks no legislative changes.
projected ers resources
Mr. Skeen. Strategic plans must be based on realistic assessments
of the resources that will be available to the agency to accomplish its
goals. As you are developing your strategic plan, how are you taking
into account projected resources that likely will be available--
especially as we move to a balanced budget? What assumption are you
making? How are you ensuring that your goals are realistic in light of
expected resources?
Response. Consistent with the assumptions about its program level
contained in the FY 1998 President's budget, the ERS strategic plan
assumes some further erosion in real levels of funding through 2002.
Policy makers and program managers increasingly will be called to
defend the efficiency and equity consequences of public policies,
regulations, and programs. Recent legislation establishing the Office
of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis--ORACA--within USDA is
evidence of this trend toward increased reliance on economic analysis.
In the case of ORACA, ERS is routinely consulted. Tighter budgets in
other USDA mission areas and other federal agencies involved in food,
development, and environmental issues will decrease their already
limited internal ability to analyze the economic effects of policies
and programs. This will make the economic perspectives that ERS
provides even more important to development of efficient, equitable
policies, programs, and technologies. In real terms, the ERS budget has
declined about 30 percent from its 1979 peak. From FY 1993 to FY 1996
the ERS appropriation was reduced 10 percent in nominal terms--$59
million to $53 million--or 20 percent in real terms. The Agency will
continue to seek interdisciplinary expertise from its partners and
stakeholders to supplement and complement ERS's capabilities. ERS will
use telecommunication and computer technology developments to enhance
analytical tools and improve communication with customers and partners.
Increasing flexibility in procurement and personnel regulations offers
new opportunities for more a responsive, adaptive, and efficient ERS.
linking strategic plan and annual performance plan goals
Mr. Skeen. For Congress, the heart of the Results Act is the
statutory link between agency plans, budget requests, and the reporting
of results. Starting with fiscal year 1999, agencies are to develop
annual performance plans that define performance goals and the measures
that will be used to assess progress over the coming year. These annual
goals are to measure agency progress toward meeting strategic goals and
are to be based on the program activities as set forth in the
President's budget.
What progress have you made in establishing clear and direct
linkages between the general goals in your strategic plan and the goals
to be contained in your annual performance plans? OMB expressed concern
last year that most agencies had not made sufficient progress in this
critical area.
More specifically, how are you progressing in linking your
strategic and annual performance goals to the program activity
structure contained in the President's budget? Do you anticipate the
need to change or modify the activity structure to be consistent with
agency's goals?
Overall, what progress has your agency made--and what challenges is
it experiencing--defining results-oriented performance measures that
will allow the agency and others to determine the extent to which goals
are being met?
Response. Quantitatively and definitively establishing that
decision makers make particular decisions because of the provision of
analyses is widely acknowledged as extremely difficult. ERS has and
continues to experiment with a variety of qualitative and quantitative
indicators to help measure the relevancy and accessibility of outputs
for customers. Indicators may include: 1--call backs for follow up
analysis from policy makers; 2--requests for ERS staff as primary
speakers at important meetings; 3--articles in major public media that
correctly and effectively use ERS analysis and data; and 4--changes in
legislation, regulation, and design of social science programs related
to agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural areas.
Interpreting the results of measurements against indicators is not
a straight forward process. If ERS analysis is objective, analysis on
the efficacy, efficiency, and equity impacts of specific policies,
programs, and regulations will at any one time support some customers'
proposals but not others. Analysis may show that an export promotion
program helps corn exporters at the expense of beef exporters. Research
may show that a water allocation proposal costs farmers but benefits
recreation interests. The corn exporters and farmers in such cases may
not fully appreciate the relevancy, accessibility, and objectivity of
ERS analysis. The history of ERS demonstrates this challenge
convincingly. The demise of ERS's predecessor agency, the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, in the 1950s and dispersal of its operations to
other USDA agencies is generally attributable to its controversial
research on conditions in the rural South. ERS continues to
constructively deal with this challenge that analytical organizations
face in providing relevant and objective analysis. ERS does not
anticipate the need to change or modify the program activity structure
contained in the President's budget to be consistent with the agency's
goals.
lessons learned
Mr. Skeen. If applicable, what lessons did the agency learn from
its participation in the Results Act pilot phase and how are those
lessons being applied to agency-side Results Act efforts? What step is
the agency taking to build the capacity--information systems, personnel
skills, etc.--necessary to implement the Results Act.
Response. ERS was not in the Results Act pilots phase. ERS,
however, individually and in conjunction with REE mission area
strategic and performance planning activities has been briefed by staff
from agencies participating in the pilot tests such as the Army
Research Labs and other experts in planning and evaluating research in
the private sector such as Mycogen Company, Pioneer Hi-Bred
International, and Ocean Spray. Lessons from them included:
Do not make strategic planning and performance measurement so
difficult that no one has time to work on achieving goals.
Good planning is an ``ever-green'' process and that use of
assessments leads to further refinements of strategic and annual plans.
People will perform to indicators--make sure the indicators lead to
the correct outcome.
Research agencies face special difficulties in tying research
results to broader outcomes in part because of long payout times.
All ERS managers received formal training in results focused
planning and assessment as early as June 1995, and the education
process continues from special briefings held for all staff on the
Results Act and the ERS strategic plans to directly involving staff in
drafting the ERS and REE strategic and annual plans.
ers stakeholders
Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to solicit and
consider the views of stakeholders as they develop the strategic plans.
Stakeholders can include state and local governments, interest groups,
the private sector, and the general public, among others. Who do you
consider to be your agency's primary stakeholders and how will you
incorporate their views into the strategic plan?
Response. The ultimate beneficiaries of ERS's program are the
American people, whose well-being is improved by informed public and
private decision making. ERS has identified policy makers and key
institutions who share that commitment and routinely make or influence
public policy and program decisions. ERS shapes its program and
products principally to serve these key decision makers: the U.S.
Congress; White House and USDA policy officials and program
administrators/managers; other Federal agencies and State and local
government officials, and domestic and international environmental,
consumer, and other public groups, including farm and industry groups
interested in public policy issues. ERS depends heavily on working
relationships with other organizations and individuals to accomplish
its mission. Key partners include: the National Agricultural Statistics
Service--NASS--for primary data collection; universities for research
collaboration; the media as disseminators of ERS analyses; and other
government agencies and departments for data information and services.
ERS stakeholders are its customers and partners, its staff,
cooperators, and contractors, and most importantly American citizens
and taxpayers.
ERS maintains close contacts with its key decision makers and its
partners through formal and informal channels from collaboration by
senior officials to daily contacts between ERS researchers and program
managers in other agencies to formal participation in department and
government initiatives. ERS sought review of an early draft of its
strategic plan through a variety of venues including REE sponsored
listening sessions around the country, a session at the American
Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, and the ERS home
page as well as internal USDA review. ERS has consulted and will
continue to consult with the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
Education, and Economics Advisory Board. The current draft reflects
changes as a result of feedback. The review process, however, remains
ongoing. USDA will soon be sending the draft ERS strategic plan to
Congress for review and consultation. Future program evaluations from
stakeholders and changing internal and external environments will
result in updating and refinement.
coordinating strategic plans with other agencies
Mr. Skeen. For the Results Act to be successful, agencies with
similar missions, goals, or strategies will need to ensure that their
efforts are coordinated. What other federal agencies are you working
with to ensure that your strategic plans are coordinated? What steps
have you taken to ensure that your efforts complement and do not
unnecessarily duplicate other federal efforts?
Response. ERS in developing its strategic and annual performance
plans maintains its commitment to meeting the needs of agencies within
and outside USDA for economic analysis of policies, programs, and
technologies aimed at making U.S. agriculture competitive providing
safe and healthy diets, enhancing the environment, and supporting
economic development. ERS has a historical network of formal and
informal contacts with all relevant agencies--naming just a few,
Foreign Agricultural Service, Food and Consumer Service, Food and Drug
Administration, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Environmental
Protection Agency, and Rural Business and Cooperative Service--which it
draws upon in developing its strategic and annual performance plans.
The REE mission area leadership has directly coordinated development of
the plans for ERS, the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, and the National
Agricultural Statistics Service; involved these agencies staffs first
hand in developing the overall REE plan; and established formal
participation by the program agencies listed above and staff in USDA's
Offices of Budget and Program Analysis and the Chief Financial Officer.
consultations with congress
Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to consult with
Congress as they develop their strategic plans. Since these plans are
due in September, now is the time for agencies to begin the required
consultations. What are your plans for the congressional consultation
as you develop your strategic plan? Which Committees will you consult
with? How will you resolve differing views?
Response. All USDA Mission Areas/Agencies have prepared draft
Strategic Plans which are currently being reviewed by the Under/
Assistant Secretary (or other relevant official), the Senior Policy
Staff, and the Secretary. Upon completion of the review, the Department
plans to provide copies of the Strategic Plan (including an overall
Departmentwide Executive Summary and Strategic Plans for individual
Mission Areas/Agencies) to relevant Congressional Committees.
Thereafter, we will look forward to meeting with Members or Staff to
discuss our Strategic Plan and to solicit your input and advice on
refinements to that Plan. We plan to provide copies of the Department
Strategic Plan to the following Committees:
House Agriculture Committee, House Appropriations Committee, House
Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, House Government
Reform and Oversight Committee, House Resources Committee, Senate
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Senate Appropriations
Committee, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee.
effect of results act on ers programs and operation
Mr. Skeen. In passing the Results Act, Congress sought to
fundamentally change the focus of federal management and decision
making to be more results-oriented. Organizations that have
successfully become results-oriented typically have found that making
the transformation envisioned by the Results Act requires significant
changes in what they do and how they do it.
What changes in program policy, organization structure, program
content, and work process has the agency made to become more results-
oriented?
How are managers held accountable for implementing the Results Act
and improving performance?
How is the agency using Results Act performance goals and
information to drive daily operations?
Response. ERS has always been concerned with providing analyses to
underpin development and operation of efficient, effective operation of
government and private activities from increasing exports and food
safety to enhancing natural resources and rural economies. The nature
of ERS mission to provide economic analyses on the impacts of a broad
array of policies, programs, and technologies and its reliance on
scientific research methods means that the ERS culture is basically
results-oriented. This orientation has affected the way ERS
historically has approached program planning and evaluation,
development of its business processes, and its use of employee
recognition and evaluation systems. ERS continues to challenge: 1--
policy makers and program managers throughout government to consider
the effects of alternative policy and program implementation options,
2--ERS suppliers and cooperators to provide goods and services to ERS
in the most cost effective manner, and 3--ERS staff to demonstrate how
their research makes a difference including the net social benefit of
research itself.
Although this orientation eases adjustment to Results Acts
requirements, ERS is using the opportunities to more explicitly
articulate and measure how ERS analyses improve the quality of public
and private decision making on issues affecting agriculture, food
consumption, natural resources, and economic development. ERS is
experimenting with different quantitative and qualitative output
indicators to measure and report its performance and is looking at
alternatives for tying research performance evaluations to performance
goals. ERS will be developing improved opportunities for customer
feedback to better establishing how ERS can help decision makers make
more informed decisions. The National Academy of Sciences National
Research Council is overseeing a major 2-year review of the ERS program
and will make recommendations for further improvements in research
methods and practices. In the second half of 1998, ERS will be
implementing recommendations concerning external advice, peer review,
and collaborative efforts to ensure that ERS analysis meets
disciplinary standards, is relevant for and highly accessible to public
and private decision makers, and is conducted in a cost effective
manner. ERS is also conducting an extensive study of the public and
private supply of and demand for economic information on domestic and
foreign agricultural performance and commodity markets. The goal is to
understand ERS's role and effectiveness in providing market information
that will contribute to development of sound public policies, better
managed public programs, and competitive market conditions.
government performance and results act
Mr. Skeen. Both the budget request for the Economic Research
Service and the National Agricultural Statistics Service include
increases to support an initiative to provide statistical support for
GPRA measurements to all Federal agencies across the government. The
increase for ERS is $125,000 and for NASS it is $540,000. The total
initiative involves eight federal agencies and $1.6 million.
1. Who are the other six agencies?
2. Briefly describe this initiative and tell us what you expect to
accomplish.
3. Most Federal agencies are well into developing their performance
and outcome measurements. How will this information be timely and
helpful?
Response. The initiative ``Provide Statistical Expertise for GPRA
Measurement'' draws upon the expertise of not only ERS and NASS, but
also the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, Census, Energy Information Agency, National Center for
Health Statistics, and the Statistics of Income in the Internal Revenue
Service.
The initiative includes three major parts: a-- $1.6 million to
develop or refine comparable ``turn-key'' data collection and
measurement resources for use by agencies throughout the Government;
b-- $0.75 million to develop standardized questions and satisfaction
scales for common elements of Federal services; and c-- $1.2 million to
add 10 Federal agencies to the American Consumer Satisfaction Index.
The additonal funding for ERS and NASS would allow ERS to participate
regarding performance measurement issues and NASS regarding sampling
issues under the turnkey sampling portion a and ERS and NASS to
contribute to question development and NASS to scales development in
the standard instrument and scales portion b.
The overall initiative statement explains a number of reasons for
undertaking the activities. Many agencies have been struggling with
measurement problems associated with outcome based performance.
Consistent concepts, scales, and sampling methods are critical for
reliable performance-based comparisons among Departments. Many Federal
services contain common dimensions--e.g. courtesty, timeliness,
knowledge--that are currently measured on different scales that
undermine useful comparisons. Many agencies have asked for help in
developing a catalog of tested questions and satisfaction scales. The
American Consumer Satisfaction Index is the only nation-wide
standardized satisfaction measure that permits consistent comparison of
private sector products and services with Federal agency products and
services.
National Agricultural Statistical Service
demand for information
Mr. Skeen. How has the 1996 Farm Bill affected the demand for
information from NASS? Have you seen a change in the kind of
information, frequency of reports, or accuracy of the data needed by
your customers?
Response. There is increased interest in all acreage reports
beginning with the Prospective Plantings report in March, the June
Acreage report in June and the Winter Wheat and Rye Seedings report in
January. The uncertainty of what farmers will plant has increased due
to producers having more freedom to shift planting based on economic
factors and other cultural practice factors instead of farm program
requirements. Therefore, these acreage reports have taken on a much
more significant role of informing the public about the year's crop
production prospects.
The 1996 Farm Bill also places greater emphasis on producers
receiving their income based on market prices. Therefore, less
government intervention in crop prices creates a more free market that
responds to market information, such as NASS's crop production
forecasts and estimates, as well as to trade statistics and other
information that impacts the price of commodities in the world market.
pesticide information
Mr. Skeen. Please report on how the information you began
collecting last year in whole-farm pesticide use surveys is being used.
Who are the primary users of this data?
Response. The information will be added to the current National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) pesticide use data base. The
whole-farm survey is adding new data that has never been available
prior to 1997. Pesticide use totals on range and pasture acres, general
farm usage, and cattle, sheep, hogs, and poultry inventories are
examples of commodities covered in the whole-farm pesticide survey.
Users of the information include government agencies, such as many
agencies within the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Both USDA and EPA use the
information to produce pesticide benefit and risk assessments, which
are critical during product re-registration. Land grant universities,
farm organizations, and private sector organizations also are primary
users of the data and rely on NASS to produce reliable pesticide use
estimates. In addition, the whole-farm pesticide use surveys, which
cover all States as well as virtually all uses, meet the requirements
of Section 1491 of the Food and Agriculture Bill of 1990 which was also
part of the 1996 Farm Bill.
census and sampling frames
Mr. Skeen. How will the responsibilities for collecting data for
the Census of Agriculture affect the NASS sampling frame?
Response. With the transfer of the responsibility for the Census of
Agriculture to NASS, the duplication of maintaining two separate lists
of agriculture producers will no longer be needed. The combined list
will become the NASS sampling frame for its regular survey program.
status of census of agriculture
Mr. Skeen. Please report to the Committee on the status of the 1997
Census of Agriculture.
Response. The 1997 Census of Agriculture program is on schedule
with the questionnaires already at the printers. The scope of the 1997
Census of Agriculture will remain comparable with prior censuses. On
February 2, 1997, 68 of the 79 employees currently working full-time on
the 1997 Census of Agriculture were officially transferred to NASS, and
8 of the 11 employees not transferring are currently detailed to NASS
to work on the 1997 Census of Agriculture by the Bureau of the Census.
A print contract was awarded in January which starts the process
for printing and assembly of more than 9 million mail packages between
now and October. The census mail list will be reviewed in May to
eliminate duplication. This is the first of two unduplication phases
required to reduce the size of the mail list prior to the addressing of
approximately 2.75 million report forms beginning in November. NASS's
45 field offices are being utilized in an effort to reduce the final
mail-out by 750,000 records.
A joint Census Bureau/NASS Planning Team has been working for over
a year to examine all functions associated with the census of
agriculture. The team reviewed all operations and determined that
certain activities should be assigned to the NASS field offices, and
the remaining work kept at the Census Bureau's Jeffersonville, Indiana
central processing office. In general, the mailout, data capture,
editing operations, and all computer processing systems will be handled
on a contractual basis through the Census Bureau. Data collection, data
analysis, tabulation, and publication will be shared throughout the 45
NASS field offices. The NASS field offices will also provide assistance
to all 2.75 million persons receiving the 1997 Census of Agriculture
questionnaire through a new toll-free telephone number included on all
questionnaires mailed to respondents. The census mail-out will occur in
mid-December of this year. This plan integrates the resources of the
two agencies and will reduce the time needed to release the results by
about 6 months, as compared to the 1992 Census of Agriculture.
In addition, the 1997 Census of Agriculture program includes a
census of outlying areas--Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and the
Northern Marianas--as well as a horticulture census, and the Farm and
Ranch Irrigation Survey. All of these programs are in the process of
being planned as part of the upcoming census cycle.
farm definition
Mr. Skeen. The minimum farm sales threshold to be considered a farm
has been an issue. Have you changed the definition for the 1997 Census?
Response. No, the definition of a farm remains at $1,000 in annual
value of sales, the same definition used since 1974.
census data collection
Mr. Skeen. Please discuss any major changes, additions, or
deletions from prior Agricultural Census data collection.
Response. The 1997 Census of Agriculture will collect essentially
the same information as the 1992 Census. A few minor improvements were
made in an effort to reduce duplication and to modernize the breakout
of tractors to include a separate category for those over 100
horsepower.
Most content additions to the Census of Agriculture resulted from
revising the Standard Industrial Classification system. The revised
system is known as the North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS), and is endorsed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
NAICS caused the addition of maple sap gathering and short-rotation
woody crops, including Christmas trees to the agricultural sector.
Also, farms which are totally enrolled in the Conservation Reserve
Program will be counted as farms and included in the farm count.
Some extra list building sources are being added to improve the
coverage of minority-owned farms. A new data collection procedure will
be implemented to account for Native American operators who live on
reservations.
census cycle costs
Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 46 of last year's
hearing record showing the full cycle costs by line item for the Census
to include actuals and revised estimates.
[The information follows:]
[Page 491--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
census forms and response rate
Mr. Skeen. Fiscal year 1998 will be the year NASS actually collects
the Census Agricultural data. How long will it take an average farmer
or rancher to fill out the form and what kind of response rate do you
expect from the 2.5 million forms mailed to farmers and ranchers?
Response. Based on previous tests and the most recent census, it
takes 5-120 minutes to complete the census report form, with most
respondents completing the form in an average of 60 minutes. The wide
variation in time is due to differences in farming operations. For
example, it would take a very short time for a farmer who only grew one
crop to complete the questionnaire, compared to a large, complex
agricultural enterprise producing multiple crops and raising many kinds
of livestock. This includes the time for reviewing the instructions,
searching and gathering the needed data, and completing the form. The
1992 Census of Agriculture had a response rate of 85 percent. I would
expect a similar response rate for the 1997 Census of Agriculture,
provided the same mandatory reporting authority is provided to NASS as
previously given to the Census Bureau.
census authorization
Mr. Skeen. Funding for the Census was included in the fiscal year
1997 appropriations bill in anticipation that authorizing legislation
needed to transfer the function from the Department of Commerce to USDA
would follow. This did not happen. What is the likelihood of
legislation passing before we do our bill this year?
Response. I believe the likelihood is very good since the
legislation introduced last year had very strong bipartisan support in
both the House and the Senate. Therefore, we are hopeful that the
authorizing legislation will pass early in this session of Congress.
Mr. Skeen. What happens if you don't get the legislation needed to
carry out the Census?
Response. Without the authorizing legislation, census of
agriculture improvements and future census preparations would be
jeopardized. For the 1997 Census of Agriculture, a decision would need
to be made whether to collect the 1997 Census of Agriculture on a
voluntary basis using NASS's authority to collect agricultural
statistics, or to use the Bureau of the Census Title 13 authority to
collect the data on a mandatory basis. Each option has a major
deficiency. First, using the voluntary option would increase data
collection costs and reported data quality would decrease because the
census responses would be voluntary. Without mandatory authority, more
nonresponse follow-up is needed which increases costs since farmers are
not as responsive to mail requests which are not identified as
``mandatory.'' The second option would prevent NASS from fully
assisting with the census since it would not have access to detailed
program files that are integral to the program transfer and needed for
effective data edit and future mail list processes. This would negate
all the efficiencies gained by the merger of the two programs.
If the authorizing legislation does not pass Congress as a fast-
track, independent bill, efforts will be made to include the
legislation as part of the re-authorization of the Research Title.
census staffing
Mr. Skeen. Do you plan to hire additional personnel to work on the
Census? If so, how many and will they be hired at the state level or
Federal level?
Response. Yes. Additional temporary employees will be employed by
our State offices utilizing the existing National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) cooperative agreement. Staff in
NASS's State offices will primarily be involved in providing telephone
assistance, as well as telephone and face-to-face data collection
support. In Jeffersonville, Indiana, the Census Bureau will provide
temporary employees appointed at the Federal level. This staff will
primarily be involved in data capture and editing activities.
Mr. Skeen. Provide a table that shows a breakout of staff years
devoted to Census work.
Response. Since the responsibility for the census of agriculture
did not transfer to NASS until the beginning of fiscal year 1997, we
have broken out the staff-years being utilized at NASS and at the
Bureau of the Census for that fiscal year only.
[The information follows:]
Staff-years Estimated to be Utilized on Census of Agriculture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of the
Fiscal year Census USDA/NASS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................... 34(\1\) 80
1998.................................... .............. 253
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represents staff-years of Census employees before they transferred
to NASS on February 2, 1997.
national resources inventory
Mr. Skeen. As you are aware, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service collects data on the status of the Nation's private lands
through the National Resources Inventory (NRI). Have you explored ways
that the Agricultural Census data can be integrated with the NRI data?
Response. Yes, NASS has been working with NRI with its evaluation
of the existing sampling program used for the NRI. However, we have not
explored the feasibility of integrating this work with the census of
agriculture. I am sure we will discuss this option as well as other
means of making maximum use of the data collected by the census of
agriculture.
nass efficiency and the census
Mr. Skeen. In last year's hearings you mentioned that transferring
the Census of Agriculture to NASS would improve the integration of
Census data and regular NASS survey operations and that there would be
an enhancement in efficiency. Please provide for the record some
concrete examples of these benefits.
Response. The major efficiency gain is that there will no longer be
a need for the Census Bureau and NASS to maintain two separate lists of
farms. The combined list will be used by NASS for the censuses of
agriculture as well as for the regular ongoing survey program. Also, by
providing NASS's field offices with the capability to review and
improve the accuracy of the census mail list, the size of the 3.5
million unit mail list used to enumerate the less than 2 million farms
will be significantly reduced, resulting in reduced mailings,
processing, and staff costs, as well as respondent burden. Finally, we
will withhold mailing census report forms to those farms and ranches
that will be contacted during December by the State offices for regular
NASS survey interviews, such as the Cattle on Feed report. During these
interviews, census data will also be collected for about 80,000-100,000
farms and ranches. This will be the first effort to reduce response
burden by integrating the data collection efforts between ongoing NASS
surveys and the census.
Mr. Skeen. Please report to the Committee on the use of the
Internet to distribute NASS reports. Has this reduced your costs or
saved time?
Response. Providing all NASS reports and electronic data products
on the Internet has significantly improved customer service. Reports on
the Internet are available to a broader audience than the historical
subscribers to paper reports or those who purchased diskettes. We are
also loading the graphics from the reports and the presentation to the
Secretary of Agriculture on the Internet. This provides publishers the
opportunity to use charts and maps when presenting the current
agriculture situation, which were not previously available. Since there
are still a number of data users who continue to want hard copies of
our reports, there has not been any significant savings. In fact, with
the major increase in the number of users of NASS data due to the
Internet, additional staff time has been expended responding to
questions about the estimates.
Mr. Skeen. Do you have any customer feedback on the use of the
Internet to disseminate NASS data and reports? Does your system record
the number of users and does it provide opportunities for recording
customer satisfaction?
Response. NASS had 73,180 accesses on the USDA Web Server for the
week of January 27, 1997 to February 2, 1997. During that week, the
Today's Reports page was accessed 1,541 times. The Web Server
statistics for the six months prior to February 1997, showed that NASS
pages on the Internet had over 944,000 accesses. There were 7,473 total
Subscriptions to NASS reports via e-mail. NASS has a feedback form on
its Home Page. In addition, we receive many requests for information
via e-mail. However, most of the requests we receive are for data,
rather than feedback. The feedback we have received at meetings and
conferences has been very positive. Many data users would like to have
an on-line database of commodity estimates, in addition to the specific
reports. Users would also like to have reports in PDF (portable
document file) format. Both of these enhancements are under evaluation
at this time.
enumerators
Mr. Skeen. Please update the Committee on the number of survey
interviewers that are employed under a cooperative agreement with the
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA).
Response. During 1996 there were 3,267 part-time employees employed
under a cooperative agreement with NASDA. They live in mostly rural
areas throughout the United States.
Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 47 of last
year's hearing record, showing the number of NASDA employees, the
amount you reimbursed NASDA for these employees, and what percentage
this reimbursement is of your total budget, to include fiscal year 1996
actuals and fiscal year 1998 estimates.
Response. The following updated table shows the number of NASDA
employees, NASDA agreement amounts, and the percent of NASS obligations
for the last 10 years, including estimates for fiscal year 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASDA
Number of agreement Percent of NASS
Year NASDA amount obligations \2\
employees \1\ ($000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988............................................................... 3,597 12,900 18.9
1989............................................................... 3,568 12,600 17.8
1990............................................................... 3,975 14,300 18.7
1991............................................................... 3,775 16,900 19.5
1992............................................................... 3,784 18,000 19.4
1993............................................................... 3,851 16,900 18.2
1994............................................................... 3,500 15,500 17.0
1995............................................................... 3,500 15,300 17.0
1996............................................................... 3,267 15,700 17.3
1997............................................................... \3\ 3,500 \3\ 17,000 15.4
1998............................................................... \3\ 3,800 \3\ 21,500 16.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of employees NASDA issued a W-2 including employees who worked at any time during the year. The
peak number of employees working at any one time is during the first two weeks of June when approximately
2,100 enumerators are utilized nationwide.
\2\ Obligations include NASS appropriations plus incoming reimbursements for services provided by NASS.
\3\ Estimated increase based on additional work due to the addition of the census of agriculture.
state office funding
Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 48 of last year's
hearing record, showing funding levels for NASS state offices by
including fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates.
Response. The following is a 10-year table showing the State and
Federal contributions including estimates for fiscal year 1997. It is
important to note that the State cooperators' contributions over this
10-year period have nearly kept pace with the Federal contribution,
increasing 31 percent, as compared to a 35 percent Federal increase.
FUNDING OF NASS STATE OFFICES
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASS state offices collocated in cooperator space All NASS state offices in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cooperator or federal space
-----------------------------
Year Federal Cooperator Total Federal Cooperator Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988................................................ 19.2 6.1 25.3 37.9 9.7 47.6
1989................................................ 20.3 7.2 27.5 39.5 10.9 50.4
1990................................................ 20.8 7.9 28.7 41.4 12.1 59.5
1991................................................ 23.8 8.2 32.1 47.3 12.2 59.5
1992................................................ 28.6 8.2 33.8 50.3 12.3 62.7
1993................................................ 25.5 8.0 33.5 49.8 12.1 61.9
1994................................................ 23.2 7.7 30.9 46.3 12.2 58.5
1995................................................ 22.2 7.3 29.5 48.0 11.8 59.8
1996................................................ 21.3 7.6 28.9 47.8 12.4 60.2
1997\1\............................................. 25.8 7.8 33.6 51.3 12.7 64.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated.
international technical assistance
Mr. Skeen. For the record, please submit a list of the countries to
which NASS is currently providing technical assistance.
Response. NASS is conducting technical assistance on a cost
reimbursable basis this fiscal year in Albania, China, Ethiopia,
Kazakstan, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Poland, Romania, Russia, and
Ukraine.
ongoing services
Mr. Skeen. Did you eliminate any ongoing services during fiscal
year 1996?
Response. No services were eliminated during fiscal year 1996.
discontinued reports
Mr. Skeen. Did you discontinue any reports during fiscal year 1996?
Do you plan to discontinue any reports in fiscal year 1997? If so,
please provide a list of these reports for the record, showing the
frequency of the report, the total number of copies published each
year, and the reason you are discontinuing the report.
Response. No reports were discontinued in fiscal year 1996 and none
are planned to be discontinued in fiscal year 1997.
report fees
Mr. Skeen. Please provide for the record a list of all reports that
are distributed on a user fee basis and give the fee for each report.
Response. A list of all reports that are distributed on a user fee
basis along with the fee for each report for the record are shown in
the following table.
[Page 496--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
cooperative research
Mr. Skeen. Do you still operate a cooperative research program? If
so, please provide a list of all cooperative research agreements that
were signed during fiscal year 1996, including a brief description of
each agreement as well as its cost.
Response. Yes, NASS does conduct an ongoing cooperative research
program with several universities as a way of introducing new
statistical techniques and methodologies into the NASS operational
program. In fiscal year 1996, a new agreement was signed with George
Mason University for $15,000. The following is a list of NASS funded
ongoing and new cooperative research projects for fiscal year 1996.
LIST OF FY 1996 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AGREEMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperator Amount Purpose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California............ $30,000 Develop improved
CASES software for
computer assisted
interviewing.
George Mason University............. 15,000 Research aligning
agricultural census
results with
estimates from NASS
sample surveys.
University of Houston............... 35,000 Research and analysis
in the development
and documentation of
``list only''
estimators.
Ohio State University............... 25,000 Research and analysis
in small area
estimation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cooperative agreements
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a list of all cooperative agreements that
were signed during fiscal year 1996, including the amount and purpose
of each agreement. Also include in this list all those agreements
planned for fiscal year 1997.
Response. Following is a list of all cooperative agreements that
were signed during fiscal year 1996, as well as a list of agreements
planned for fiscal year 1997.
[Pages 498 - 504--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
reimbursable surveys
Mr. Skeen. Please provide a list of all surveys done on a
reimbursable basis.
Response. The following is a list of all the surveys done on a
reimbursable basis in fiscal year 1996.
National Agricultural Statistics Service Reimbursable Surveys, FY 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Marketing Service Milk Price Data
Customer Satisfaction
Survey for Export Guide
Rail Shippers Survey
Pesticide Data Program
Agricultural Research Service Assistance on Food Consumption
Survey Data
Animal Plant Health Inspection National Animal Health Monitoring
Service System
Animal Damage Control
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection
Economic Research Service Farm Costs and Returns
Farm Service Agency County Estimates
Feed Grain County
Estimates
Food and Consumer Service Healthy Eating Index
Forest Service Grazing Fees
Retirement Survey
Modernization of Administrative Customer Service
Processes
Natural Resources Conservation Land Use
Service
Department of Commerce Nonresponse Follow-up
Department of the Interior Grazing Fees
Iowa State University Nematode Study
State Department of Agriculture Crop Reporting Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
special surveys
Mr. Skeen. Your agency conducted 152 special surveys in fiscal year
1996. Provide a list for the record including the total cost of each
survey.
Response. In fiscal year 1996, approximately 152 special surveys
were conducted. Following is a list of 127 special surveys and
projects; some contain multiple surveys which were counted as one since
the funding was reported under one project.
[Pages 506 - 510--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
budget request
Mr. Skeen. Provide a detailed breakout, by item, of your budget
request to the Secretary, the Secretary's request to OMB, and the OMB
allowance.
Response. On a comparable basis, a budget of $123,732,000 was
submitted to the Secretary, who recommended a budget of $120,543,000 to
OMB. The OMB allowance was $119,877,000 and included funds for the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measurement. The $540,000
for GPRA measurement was not included in NASS's or the Secretary's
request. NASS's request to the Secretary did include $990,000 for the
development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure geospatial
cropland data layer.
computer assisted interviewing
Mr. Skeen. In your testimony last year, you reported to the
Committee that, based on a trial in Indiana, costs of using laptop
computers to assist interviewers exceeded their benefits due to an
unexpected increase in hardware costs. Have technological changes in
the computer industry or price reductions changed your assessment?
Response. While there have been technological changes and price
reductions in the computer industry, it is still not cost effective for
our rather demanding application. Many of our face-to-face interviews
occur outside, literally in the farmers' fields, subject to harsh
environmental elements, such as bright sunlight, and hot and human
conditions. In addition, the interviewers must carry aerial photographs
(approximately 3 feet by 3 feet), on which crop field boundaries will
be drawn. This requires us to use very lightweight (a maximum of 4
pounds) computers with a high quality display. Because some of the
interviews are conducted in the fields, battery life becomes an issue.
Battery life of top quality laptops average 2-4 hours. The survey
applications that are conducted primarily through face-to-face
interviews are very complex and require a 486 computer with at least 8
MB of RAM to run them. This requirement and the monitor requirement
eliminate the use of palmtop computer models. The next lightest models,
the subnotebook computer models, are being designed and marketed for
corporate travel. These models include many more features than we need,
which adds cost and reduces the battery life.
Most other survey organizations using computers for personal
interviews are conducting the interviews inside the respondents' homes.
These organizations therefore can (and do) use heavier (7 pounds or
more) computers and do not rely on batteries unless the respondent
requests it. However, NASS will continue to monitor the cost
effectiveness of using laptop computers in the hope that in the future
this technology becomes affordable.
Mr. Skeen. Please update the Committee on the status of computer
assisted telephone home interviewing.
Response. NASS has researched Computer Assisted Personal
Interviewing (CAPI) since the early 1990's. During the last couple of
years, the research was limited to work with the June Area Survey and
major multiple frame surveys. This effort proved that this type of
interviewing was a capable tool for collecting data on a laptop
computer. NASS also proved that the technology could support the
electronic transmission of data into the state office. However, NASS
has decided to terminate further implementation of CAPI since NASS does
not conduct the type of surveys that lend themselves to CAPI. Most
surveys are of very short duration (less than 2 weeks) and are frequent
in occurrence. The overhead of supporting CAPI significantly increases
the per survey unit cost in this environment. In addition, the cost of
laptop computers has increased. With potentially between 1,000 and
1,500 field enumerators to equip with laptop computers, the start-up
costs for CAPI are prohibitive at this time.
number of farms, land in farms
Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 62 of last
year's hearing record, showing the number of farms operating in the
U.S., the acreage of land being farmed, and the total U.S. acreage to
include fiscal year 1996 actuals.
[The information follows:]
1985-1996 U.S. TOTAL LAND AND FARM LAND COMPARED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land in Total land
Number of farms \1\ area \2\
Year farms \1\ (million (million
(1,000's) acres) acres)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985................................ 2,293 1,012 ..........
1986................................ 2,250 1,005 ..........
1987................................ 2,213 999 ..........
1988................................ 2,201 994 ..........
1989................................ 2,175 991 ..........
1990................................ 2,146 987 2,263
1991................................ 2,117 982 ..........
1992................................ 2,108 979 ..........
1993................................ 2,083 976 ..........
1994................................ 2,065 973 ..........
1995................................ 2,072 972 ..........
1996................................ 2,063 968 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: USDA, Farms and Land in Farms.
\2\ Source: U.S. Bureau of Census.
farm definition
Mr. Skeen. What definition of a farm do you use in collecting the
data shown in the table that appears on page 62 of last year's report?
Response. A farm is defined as ``any establishment from which
$1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold or would normally be
sold during the year.'' Government payments are included in sales.
Institutional farms, experimental and research farms, and Indian
Reservations are included as farms. To be considered a farm, the place
must be operating on June 1. Places with all their acreage enrolled in
the Conservation Reserve Program or other government programs are
considered operating. This basic definition has been in place since
1974.
strategic plan
Mr. Skeen. NASS completed work on a long-range strategic plan in
fiscal year 1994 which resulted in four strategic initiatives. These
are NASS data system 2000, NASS survey design 2000, NASS leadership
program, and NASS customer service outreach. What is the status of each
initiative?
Response. Significant progress has been made on each of the four
NASS strategic initiatives. The Data System 2000 initiative has
resulted in a new organizational unit dedicated to the implementation
of an interactive data base to improve analysis capabilities for all
NASS employees. Data access for data users has also been materially
improved via more electronic data availability and an Internet Home
Page. The media now have better facilities to use in the lockup area
and are able to get the time sensitive data to a wide audience more
quickly after the reports are released than in the past. A new list
sampling frame system has also been developed which will make it easier
and more efficient for NASS to manage its list of data providers and
users.
The Survey Design 2000 initiative has resulted in NASS redesigning
the way it will sample from its list sampling frame to make samples as
efficient and effective as possible and continually aligned with the
changing nature of American agriculture. The area frame samples have
also been redesigned. They were divided into two components, summer and
fall, to serve beginning and end of crop season needs targeted toward
those crop and livestock commodities best served by the area frame.
Some data needs, such as farm numbers, land values, rural statistics
can be served by the combined use of both area frame surveys.
The Leadership Program initiatives have resulted in a new employee
performance evaluation program and enhanced merit award system to
recognize employee contributions toward the strategic goals of the
Agency. Career path choices available to all NASS employees have been
clarified and communicated. The leadership committee also investigates
opportunities for the Agency to gain operating efficiencies and
administrative improvements that will strengthen the infrastructure of
NASS.
The Customer Service Outreach initiative has resulted in naming a
customer service coordinator attached to the Associate Administrator.
This person ensures rapid response to public inquiries for NASS data as
well as responding to those seeking help or direction in dealing with
the broad services of USDA or the Federal Government. A toll-free
information hotline was established as part of this initiative to give
data users and the public easy and direct access to NASS services.
Information about NASS and the NASS Strategic Plan, as well as current
and historical data series, are accessible through the NASS Home Page
via the Internet. The media are important customers who help to get
official statistics communicated to everyone as rapidly as possible
upon release. NASS has worked closely with them to facilitate and
expedite their work. Producers and others who both supply and use data
are also extremely important customers. NASS is renewing its efforts to
serve these stakeholders while minimizing the reporting burden
associated with securing the needed information.
data system 2000
Mr. Skeen. Provide a detailed time line for completion of the NASS
Data System 2000 initiative, including how much it will cost.
Response. NASS is in a constant state of re-engineering due to
changes in program and technology. The NASS Data System 2000 is a
strategic initiative designed to provide a comprehensive plan for
streamlining information management in NASS which will increase the
efficiency, timeliness, and accessibility of information. Under the
Data System 2000 initiative, four databases will form the basic data
storage and information processing architecture for the future. These
databases represent sub-projects to the initiative. They are described
as follows:
1. The Historical Data Warehouse database will store information
for the majority of our surveys and the census data at the reporter
level. The warehouse will be used for sampling information, research,
analysis, and historical data use during an interview. The warehouse is
scheduled to be built and populated with important current year NASS
data and will have the structure ready to receive data from the 1997
Census of Agriculture in 1998.
2. The NASS Estimates Database System (NEDS) stores and manages
survey indications and official estimates in the estimating program at
a summarized level (national, State, regional, county, etc.). NEDS will
provide a standardized software tool for use by both the field offices
and headquarters for survey indication review and estimate submission
for all commodities. NEDS is currently being used for several
commodities. Completion of NEDS for all commodities is projected to be
the end of 1999.
3. Enhanced List Maintenance Operations (ELMO) is the name given to
the name and address database and its associated applications
pertaining to NASS's list of farm operators and agribusinesses. ELMO is
currently operational in 12 States and will be installed in all States
by October 1997.
4. The Published Estimates Database is NASS's public database of
official estimates and historical data. This database is being
transformed to a database which will be accessible via the Internet.
The inital Internet version is scheduled for access in the summer of
1997.
The total cost of the four components of the Data System 2000 is
extremely difficult to determine. The initiatives are in various stages
of development which complicates cost analysis. Rapidly changing
technology and changing costs for hardware and software complicate cost
estimates, particularly for the out-years. Many costs are part of
normal maintenance and upgrade plans. Extra costs are being incurred
relating to the data warehouse and the upgrading of NASS systems to be
compatible with the Census Bureau. Procurement of the data warehouse
software and the upgrading of equipment is projected to total
approximately $5 million through fiscal year 2000.
customer outreach
Mr. Skeen. Another one of your strategic initiatives is Customer
Service Outreach. Outreach usually implies reaching out to new
customers or underserviced customers. How are you identifying new
customers?
Response. All new NASS publicity materials and NASS reports
distributed across the country now contain the NASS toll-free
Agricultural Statistics Hotline number to invite new customers or help
those seeking additional information on NASS products and services. A
customer profile is logged into a database at the Hotline for future
reference.
The new Census Publicity and Outreach Committee was established to
oversee the transition of the newly acquired Census of Agriculture to
NASS, to educate the public and to promote the 1997 Census of
Agriculture as it now relates to USDA.
The recent installation of an autofax system (NASSfax) provides
another means of providing quick access to users. The autofax system
permits customers to access the data at their convenience.
NASS continues to improve the Internet Home Page to attract new
customers by providing an attractive, user-friendly, and informative
web site. Today's Reports on the Home Page, provides quick and easy
access to information on the Nation's agriculture less than 5 minutes
after release. This feature continues to delight old users and attract
new customers looking for immediate access to information.
NASS continues to utilize the Internet to educate the public
concerning the NASS's function, programs, and services. Agency
Information is now a separate button on the Home Page, providing anyone
browsing the NASS Home Page quick access to the function of the Agency,
the strategic plan, etc. The new NASS Home Page also contians a direct
link to the newly acquired Census Division and the NASS Research
Division. These two divisions have unique data sets available that the
general public and academia can access.
A free catalog of NASS products and services is advertised in
numerous NASS publications and offered as another incentive to attract
new users to NASS products and services. A feedback questionnaire
(available on the Internet), the autofax, and the Hotline are used to
identify and communicate with new customers.
The NASS staff continues customer outreach by presenting numerous
talks and demonstrations at Data Users Meetings, commodity expositions,
and agricultural trade fairs. These demonstrations feature NASS on the
Internet, the use of NASS data, and distribution of material to educate
people about products and services available. Farm groups are also
provided data collection and analysis briefings and tours of NASS's
report release operation.
To further assure that NASS Internet customers are not under
serviced, all NASS employees were offered training to educate them on
the Internet and NASS data available on the Internet. This training was
designed to help staff improve customer service to users seeking data
on the Internet. A NASS on the Internet handbook has been provided to
all employees as a desk reference. One segment of the Handbook
discusses specific customer service questions and answers.
other services object class
Mr. Skeen. Provide a sub-object class breakout for Object Class
25.2, Other Services, for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Response. A sub-object class breakout for object class 25.2
(appropriated portion only) for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998
follows. The net increase of $4.3 million for NASDA in 1998 is for the
1997 Census of Agriculture.
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE OTHER SERVICES\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
(NASDA) for data collection work............................ $14,249,000 $14,589,000 $18,894,000
Training (regular-nonspecialized)............................ 197,000 213,000 248,000
ADP.......................................................... 2,283,000 2,433,000 2,383,000
Cooperative Agreements, (excluding ADP and NASDA)............ 1,105,000 1,294,000 1,294,000
Miscellaneous................................................ 440,000 405,000 660,000
Total.................................................. 18,274,000 18,934,000 23,479,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reimbursable work for others.
purchases from government accounts
Mr. Skeen. Also, provide a sub-object class breakout for object
class 25.3, purchases of goods and services from government accounts,
for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Response. Following is a sub-object class breakout of object class
25.3 (appropriated portion only) for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS for Administrative Services.............................. $2,811,000 $2,784,000 $2,818,000
National Finance Center (NFC)................................ 229,000 311,000 315,000
Management Council Assessment for Security \1\............... 116,000 147,000 148,000
Working Capital Fund Assessments excluding NFC............... 142,000 153,000 155,000
Bureau of the Census for work on the Census of Agriculture... ............... \2\ 10,212,000 \3\ 15,000,000
Miscellaneous................................................ 615,000 526,000 434,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 3,913,000 14,133,000 19,670,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Building security.
\2\ For census salaries and printing costs incurred prior to transfer to NASS.
\3\ The mail-out, data capture, editing operations, all computer processing systems will be on a contractual
basis with the Census Bureau. NASS is conducting the data collection, data analysis, tabulation, and
publication operations.
estimates and survey changes
Mr. Skeen. Please report to the Committee on how the plan to change
the estimates and survey programs was evaluated by commodity
organizations and data users. When will you implement the new plan?
Response. The estimates program and survey changes were placed on
hold after it was learned that the responsibility for conducting the
census of agriculture was to be transferred to NASS. We felt it was
prudent to implement changes after the results of the census were known
and could be used in the decision process. We received only limited
input from industry groups and much more information will have to be
obtained before final decisions are made. Current plans are to evaluate
NASS's current crop programs in light of the 1997 Census of Agriculture
data, gather the necessary industry input, and implement acceptable
changes in the 1999 crop year.
toll-free number
Mr. Skeen. NASS has established a toll-free number for customer
use. Please update the Committee on how many calls have been received
in 1995 and 1996.
Response. The toll-free number was activated in May 1995 and was
published in reports and brochures, and on the Internet. The Hotline
received 603 calls during 1995. Nearly 4,200 calls were received during
1996, for an average of 350 per month. The calls peaked at over 400
during several months in 1996.
remote sensing
Mr. Skeen. Are there any opportunities to use remote sensing
technology used in national security work to estimate crop acreage
planted or yields?
Response. NASS staff recently participated in a small pilot level
study to evaluate the potential use of National Technical Means (NTM)
data for crop acreage estimation and crop yield forecasting. The study
concluded that there was indeed pertinent information in NTM data for
these purposes.
However, NASS does not possess the analytical infrastructure for
routine utilization of NTM data, or the soon to be launched commercial
very high resolution systems. Currently and in the foreseeable future,
mid-resolution systems like Landsat and SPOT and commercial plans such
as those by Resource 21, seem best suited to our domestic needs for
large area crop monitoring. If commercial very high resolutions
systems, such as those planned by Space Imaging/EOSAT, Earthwatch and
OrbImage, are successfully launched, then a potential use by NASS would
be for small scale quality control sampling.
impact of wildlife
Mr. Skeen. Please report to the Committee the final results of a
nationwide survey to identify the impact of wildlife on agriculture.
Response. Two-thirds of the U.S. farmers surveyed reported
suffering crop and livestock losses to wildlife. The species most
frequently cited as causing damage were hoofed animals, with 34 percent
of respondents reporting damage. Deer were the most frequently named
species causing damage to field crops, fruits, nuts, and vegetables.
Coyotes were the most frequently named species causing damage to
livestock, while mice and rats accounted for most of the damage to
stored grains. Producers in the north central States reported the
highest incidence of damage while producers in the west reported the
lowest incidence.
minority farmers
Mr. Skeen. One of the recent issues facing USDA are allegations
that it has not always been equitable in dealing with minority farmers.
The secretary's task force investigating this issue has recently filed
a report. Do you feel that NASS is adequately meeting the needs of
socially disadvantaged and limited resource farmers?
Response. No. Therefore, plans are underway to improve the coverage
of minority farms for the upcoming 1997 Census of Agriculture. These
plans include providing, for the first time, a count of Native American
operators on reservations. NASS is utilizing additional sources of
minority farm names and addresses and allocating additional NASS
resources for nonresponse follow-up to increase coverage.
performance indicators
Mr. Skeen. In your 1998 explanatory statement you display 1996,
1997, and 1998 performance indicators for three performance measures.
How well did you perform in 1996?
Response. In 1996, NASS exceeded its coverage goal, with 92 percent
of agricultural cash receipts covered by NASS's current production
statistics program, compared to the published goal of 91 percent. NASS
exactly met the 99.9 percent goal for percentage of reports issued that
meet the scheduled release date. NASS exceeded its published timeliness
goal of 25.9 days between the start of data collection and the release
of the report, by almost one day in 1996.
rental payments
Mr. Skeen. The object class breakdown of your budget request shows
that object class 23.2, rental payments to others, is proposed to
increase 192 percent in fiscal year 1998. Please provide the Committee
with a detailed accounting of this increase.
Response. The entire increase of 192 percent or $325,000 in object
class 23.2 is for office space rental for the census of agriculture
personnel who transferred from the Bureau of the Census to NASS.
equipment
Mr. Skeen. Object class 31, equipment, more than doubled in fiscal
year 1997. What accounts for this increase?
Response. The additional funds for equipment for fiscal year 1997
are for equipping the State Statistical Offices with an up-to-date wide
area network to handle the increased workload associated with the
census of agriculture. The equipment must be purchased and installed in
fiscal year 1997 to be ready in time for processing of the census.
number of survey interviewers
Mr. Skeen. Last year you reported that there were about 3,600 part-
time staff employed as survey interviewers. In this year's explanatory
statement you indicate that the part-time employment level is about
3,200. Have you reduced the number of part-time interviewers? If so,
why?
Response. Yes. For 1996 there were 3,267 part-time staff employed
as interviewers. Sample sizes were reduced for some surveys. The number
of interviewers used on the midyear survey, the largest survey done in
1996, was about 2,100 interviewers, compared to about 2,500
interviewers for 1995. We have continued to look for efficiencies in
our data collection program and have been able to reduce the sample
size for some surveys and change the data collection method for others.
gpra measurement
Mr. Skeen. You show a $540,000 increase in your 1998 budget request
for GPRA measurement. Since no funds are available in 1997 for this
initiative, will work done in 1998 make a timely contribution to
performance measurement?
Response. Yes, since this initiative is designed to take advantage
of existing sampling, testing, data collection, and measurement
resources within the eight Federal statistical agencies, the work done
in 1998 would make a timely contribution to performance measurement.
For example, existing ``off-the-shelf'' sampling schemes could be used
to support valid measurement of performance goals.
Mr. Skeen. You state that development of meaningful and useful
measures and indicators is proving to be a challenging task and that
the formulation of measures that can be compared across agencies is
extremely difficult. Would you please elaborate on this statement in
further detail for the record?
Response. Federal agencies are struggling with GPRA and are looking
for assistance to develop meaningful measures for gauging performance
as well as help with sample design, questionnaire development, and
survey methodology to ensure reliable results. Sound design, conformity
in survey questions, and use of standardized questions and satisfaction
scales are essential to meaningful results which can be tracked over
time. Agencies also need to be able to compare measures across the
Federal Government and with recognized industry standards.
Mr. Skeen. Provide some specific examples of measures that will be
used as comparisons across agencies.
Response. Customer satisfaction measures need to be comparable
across agencies. For example, measures of timeliness, courtesy,
accuracy, and completeness are standard components of customer
satisfaction.
Mr. Skeen. Eight Federal statistical agencies are participating in
this GPRA initiative. Provide the Committee with a list of these
agencies as well as what each agency's budget request is for fiscal
year 1998.
Response. The eight participating agencies and the associated
budget request for this initiative are as follows: Bureau of Labor
Statistics, $600,000; Bureau of Transportation Statistics, $270,000;
Bureau of Census, $300,000; Energy Information Administration,
$610,000; Economic Research Service, $125,000; NASS $540,000; National
Center for Health Statistics, $930,000; Statistics of Income (IRS),
$175,000. The total for all agencies is $3.55 million.
Mr. Skeen. One of the goals of this GPRA initiative is to add 10
Federal agencies to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, ACSI.
What is the ACSI and what does it do?
Response. The ASCI is managed by the University of Michigan and the
American Society of Quality Control, and is the only proven, recognized
methodology and system for measurement and comparison of government and
private sector products and services. The unique benchmark comparison
methodology used by ACSI has already been adopted as the official
measure of customer satisfaction in three countries and was adopted in
1996 for the countries of the European Union. The GPRA initiative
includes $1.2 million for ACSI measurements of 10 programs: two rural
or food programs, four health and welfare programs, one infrastructure
program, and three to be selected from other government services, such
as the environment or export promotion programs.
jeffersonville, indiana
Mr. Skeen. The Geographic Breakdown of Obligations and Staff years
reveals a large, 596 percent, increase in obligations and staffing in
Indiana. Why is the increase in Indiana so large?
Response. It is because of the census of agriculture. The Bureau of
the Census has a mailing and processing center in Jeffersonville,
Indiana. NASS plans to use the Jeffersonville facility for the mailing
and processing of over 2.75 million Census questionnaires for the 1997
Census of Agriculture.
customer feedback
Mr. Skeen. In your status of programs report you indicated that you
conducted a telephone survey to obtain customer feedback. Please
provide the Committee with a summary of the highlights of the survey.
Response. A small survey was conducted on telephone calls received
to briefly review with the caller the service received when contacting
the NASS Hotline. Highlights of the telephone follow-up survey
indicated customer satisfaction was good or excellent based on
responses to the questions. The survey had questions on promptness,
accuracy, helpfulness, and whether people would use the service again.
All respondents indicated they would use the service again and over 80
percent felt they had received prompt and helpful service from NASS
staff.
We learned that we are on the right track with the toll-free line
and the training provided to the staff to enhance knowledge of NASS
products and services. We also learned that we should follow-up more
quickly after we have assisted a customer. Calling back even a month
later, some people did not remember they had contacted us or why they
had contacted us. Some Hotline callers did not care to take the extra
time to give their name or telephone number, if they had only ``a
simple question'' and had been given an answer while on the telephone
or if they were calling for a subscription and needed to be connected
to our sales order desk.
loan subsidy rates
Mr. Skeen. What was the result of the assistance NASS provided to
the Rural Development budget division on predicting loan subsidy rates?
Response. A final report, Estimating Cash Flows and Subsidy Rates
in USDA Rural Housing and Farm Loan Programs, was delivered to the
Office of the Inspector General and the respective agencies. The report
outlines deficiencies in the existing models, describes work done to
provide better supporting data for model assumptions, describes an
appropriate approach to model building and assessment, and provides
alternative models for critical aspects of the cash flow modeling.
Based on comments from the auditors, agency implementation of the
suggestions in the report could form a basis for removal of audit
findings and provide an appropriate process for maintaining a clean
audit.
data collection
Mr. Skeen. Why does USDA need to collect so much data on
agriculture? Other industries are not as dependent on Federal data
collection. Why can't we just let the markets operate?
Response. There is no other industry like agriculture where
producers have so little control over the prices they receive for their
products. In order for the markets to efficiently operate, there needs
to be timely, accurate, and unbiased information available at the time
to all parties involved in the marketing channel, and NASS is the sole
source for this information. Large agribusinesses and private
consulting firms have information gathering systems for internal use,
but if the markets were left at the mercy of these data, unfair
advantage and price manipulation could occur since the accuracy of the
data would be unknown, and information would not be equally available
to all parties. The small farm operators, in particular, would be most
harmed by this information void. In addition, looking at the global
market, the United States would be at a severe disadvantage if timely
information were not readily available on U.S. commodity supplies and
prices. Finally, agricultural statistics are relied upon by many others
in the private sector, Congress, universities, and other government
agencies.
The entire food and agriculture industry today employs one out of
six employees in the United States and depends on the basic supply
statistics provided by NASS. Agricultural statistics cover an extremely
large number of different commodities which are grown under varying
weather conditions in different regions of the United States. Because
of the broad distribution of agricultural production, the industry
needs not only current information on what is being produced, but also
must know where it is being produced in order to efficiently plan their
business. No other industry in the United States is so decentralized or
affected so frequently by changing weather conditions, requiring
frequent surveys to measure what the situation is at any specific time.
Inventories of the supply of the various commodities is essential to
support the United States' expanded effort to export agricultural
commodities.
economic research service reimbursement
Mr. Skeen. You anticipate receiving $4,150,000 from the Economic
Research Service for farm costs and returns and agricultural resource
management study. This is an increase of $1,645,000 and 13 staff years
above the fiscal year 1996 reimbursement. Briefly describe this work
for the record and tell the Committee how the increase will be used.
Response. The funding received from the Economic Research Service
(ERS) is higher than 1996, but still below the levels received just a
few years ago. ERS has allocated increased data collection funds
primarily for a new survey called the Agricultural Resource Management
Study. NASS and ERS have collaborated on redesigning two older surveys
and combined them into this new study. This new project integrates
several important USDA estimation and research programs, producing a
much more useful data set. NASS will survey more than 65,000 farmers
and ranchers. Information collected includes pesticide use on major
field crops, integrated Pest Management practices, farm finance
information (farm/household income, expenses, assets, and liabilities),
cost of production information, risk management strategies, and
information to report on the status of the family farm. ERS, NASS, and
others can link these data items together because of the new integrated
survey design. The new design significantly increases USDA's economic
research capacity and statistics program. The new sample is larger than
the two survey samples it replaced which is the reason for the
increased funding received from ERS.
childhood injury data
Mr. Skeen. You expect to do some work for the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health in fiscal years 1997 and 1998. Describe
this work in further detail for the record.
Response. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) designed the project to collect information about childhood
injuries occurring on farms and ranches in the U.S. However, NOISH
recently decided to postpone the project for one year. Several concerns
were raised about some segments of farm workers, primarily the migrant
farm workers, that needed further research by NIOSH.
data collection costs
Mr. Skeen. You are requesting a total increase of $640,000 for
increased data collection costs. Does this increase cover more than
costs related to salaries and expenses of state surveyors?
Response. Most of the increased costs are associated with increased
salaries for the NASDA enumerators. In addition, it covers the costs
associated with increased mileage and per diem rates that are
authorized by GSA.
Mr. Skeen. What is the salary increase for NASDA employees in
fiscal year 1998? What are the increased costs for per diem and
mileage?
Response. For fiscal year 1998, the salary increase is expected to
be $470,000. Per diem will be up $30,000, and increased mileage costs
are estimated at $140,000.
indexes of prices paid
Mr. Skeen. Why was the publication of the indexes of prices paid by
farmers expanded from a quarterly program to a monthly program?
Response. NASS expanded the publication of indexes of prices paid
from a quarterly to monthly program to obtain comparability with its
monthly prices received program. Based upon correlation analysis, NASS
was able to use price movements of similar input indexes from BLS
monthly data to update the NASS monthly input indexes for some 30 major
input sub-groups. NASS can therefore publish monthly prices paid
indexes with no additional data collection or survey expense for eleven
months. NASS maintains its core surveys of input prices in April of
each year as the basis of its prices paid program. In prior years,
these prices paid surveys were conducted quarterly.
migrant workers
Mr. Skeen. What are the number of migrant workers that were
reported in November 1996?
Response. The actual number of migrant workers is not published.
The percent of all hired workers that are migrant workers is provided
quarterly in the following table along with the total number of hired
workers.
ALL HIRED WORKERS 1 AND PERCENT MIGRANT WORKERS: UNITED STATES, BY QUARTER,
1995-96 \2\
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January April July October
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Year All Percent All Percent All Percent All Percent
hired migrant hired migrant hired migrant hired migrant
workers workers workers workers workers workers workers workers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 \3\................................ ....... (\4\) ....... (\4\) 1,414 12.4 1,256 11.6
1996.................................... 713 5.7 987 7.5 1,346 13.1 1,226 11.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes agricultural service workers.
\2\ Definition ``Migrant Worker'' is a farm worker whose employment required travel that prevented the farm
worker from returning to his/her permanent place of residence the same day.
\3\ Data first collected during July 1995 survey.
\4\ Not available.
milk production
Mr. Skeen. Submit a five year table that shows a summary of milk
production estimates by State.
Response. Following is a 5-year table of milk production.
[Pages 520 - 521--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
hispanic cheese
Mr. Skeen. Hispanic cheese and nonfat ice cream estimates were
added to the monthly and annual manufactured dairy products reports.
What are Hispanic type cheeses?
Response. Hispanic cheese is a unique type of cheese with good
melting characteristics. It is often used as a sauce. Technically, the
product standard of identity defines it as ``a natural cheese with a ph
of 5.7 or higher and a moisture content of 40 percent or more.''
Hispanic-type cheeses have become increasingly popular and now account
for almost 1 percent of U.S. cheese production each month. It is
produced primarily in California and Wisconsin.
statistical highlights of u.s. agriculture
Mr. Skeen. What timeframe does the publication ``Statistical
Highlights of U.S. Agriculture'' cover?
Response. The publication ``Statistical Highlights of U.S.
Agriculture'' 1995/96 covers crop production data for the years 1992-
1995. Inventory numbers for livestock reflect the number on hand
January 1 of 1993-1996. Price data and value of production reflect the
same 4-year period.
Mr. Skeen. This publication was released in June 1996. When will
the next issue be released?
Response. Current plans are to release the 1996/97 publication in
May 1997.
Mr. Skeen. Submit a copy of the latest publication for the record.
[Clerks note.--The publication is too lengthy for reprint.
A copy is retained in Committee files.]
mann library
Mr. Skeen. What is the cost of the cooperative agreement with the
Mann Library of Cornell University?
Response. For fiscal year 1996 it was $10,996 and for 1997 it is
expected to be $11,000.
home page
Mr. Skeen. Approximately half of the state field offices have their
own home page. Is the information duplicative in nature to the
information provided from headquarters?
Response. Thirty-six of the forty-five NASS State field offices
currently have their own Home Pages. The States' Home Pages contain
additional local data not provided through the headquarters Home Page.
The State field office home pages also contain a link to the NASS Home
Page which helps customers find national data and statistics that are
not available locally.
training
Mr. Skeen. A needs assessment for customer service training was
conducted and the results are currently being evaluated. A proposal for
training, including necessary training on new Census duties, is being
prepared. Will this training have occurred before the survey begins?
Response. Three major training sessions for the Census of
Agriculture are planned for the NASS staff during the next year. Two of
these sessions will be held before the 1997 Census of Agriculture
begins and one will take place in the spring of 1998, after the census
data collection is underway. State Statisticians, Deputy State
Statisticians, and Headquarters managers will be trained on general
procedures for the 1997 Census of Agriculture at a seminar on April 21-
24, 1997. Another seminar will be conducted in September 1997 for the
two primary census coordinators from each State office. A third
training session will be held during the spring of 1998 to train staff
on procedures for the analytical review phase. Finally, appropriate
training will be conducted at the State level for the NASDA enumerator
staff prior to the start of the data collection period for the 1997
Census of Agriculture.
land area based survey
Mr. Skeen. Your agency has changed its land area based survey to
consider the United States as a whole, rather than each state
independently. What impact has this had on providing needed state level
information?
Response. NASS uses several survey methods to provide state level
information. The change to consider the United States as a whole has
changed the area based sample size in most States, but each State still
has an area sample. Implementation of the change will not be completed
until the 1998 crop season. All but the very smallest producing States
will have information for major crop items with little change in
precision. In some cases it will be better. For some estimates we use
the land based survey as the main indication. Most of the other
information is based on list plus land area samples or list only
samples. The change in the land area based sample will have negligible
impact on this State level information.
In addition, NASS will implement a land area based survey in the
fall of 1997. This survey will make additional land area based samples
available for use to collect State level information.
cattle deaths
Mr. Skeen. What were the results of the study of the magnitude and
causes of death loss to the cattle industry your agency conducted for
APHIS?
Response. Detailed information on cattle and calf death losses was
collected in conjunction with the January 1996 Cattle Inventory Survey.
Results were released May 17, 1996. The report showed total death
losses during 1995 of 4.4 million head, with a total cost to farmers
and ranchers of $1.8 billion. Predators accounted for 2.7 percent of
these losses. By type, coyotes were reported to have caused the largest
share of predator losses, while respiratory problems were the leading
cause of other deaths.
census of agriculture
Mr. Skeen. The budget request for the National Agricultural
Statistics Service includes an increase of $18.8 million for the Census
of Agriculture. The Census is conducted every five years and in the
past it has been conducted and paid for by the Department of Commerce.
We provided funding in the fiscal year 1997 ag appropriations bill for
Census work in anticipation that the authorizing Committee would pass
legislation needed to transfer the function from Commerce to USDA. This
did not happen. Where did this legislation end up last year? What
happened with the funds provided this year? Where you able to carry out
the work or did you just transfer the money to Commerce to do the work?
What is the likelihood that legislation transferring the Census
functions to USDA will be enacted before we do our bill this year? What
happens to both the Census and the funding if you don't get this
legislation passed?
Response. The authorizing legislation passed the House last year on
July 22, 1997, as H.R. 3665. Unfortunately there was not sufficient
time for the legislation to pass the Senate before adjournment. I
believe the likelihood of authorizing legislation being enacted this
year is very good since this legislation had strong bipartisan support
last year and had very broad industry support.
Without the authorizing legislation, census of agriculture
improvements and future census preparations would be jeopardized. For
the 1997 Census of Agriculture, a decision would need to be made
whether to collect the 1997 Census of Agriculture on a voluntary basis
using NASS's authority to collect agricultural statistics or to use the
Bureau of the Census Title 13 authority to collect the data on a
mandatory basis. Each option has a major deficiency. First, using the
voluntary option would increase data collection costs and reported data
quality would likely decrease because the census responses would be
voluntary.
The second option, using Title 13 authority, would prevent NASS
from fully assisting with the census since it would not have access to
detailed program files that are integral to the program transfer and
needed for effective data edit and future mail list processes. This
would negate all the efficiencies gained by the merger of the two
programs.
Even without the authorizing legislation, the temporary authority
provided in the Agricultural Appropriations Act of 1997 made it
possible to move ahead with preparations for the 1997 Census of
Agriculture. On February 2, 1997, 68 of the 79 employees currently
working full-time on the Census of Agriculture were officially
transferred to USDA/NASS.
We plan to not only keep the definition of a farm intact at $1,000
sales, continue the Census of Agriculture for outlying areas, and
continue the follow-on Irrigation and Horticultural Censuses, but we
also have made a number of major improvements. First, the use of NASS
field offices in preparing the final census mail list is expected to
reduce by 750,000 the number of nonfarms, i.e., retired, deceased,
owner-nonoperators being mailed the 1997 Census questionnaire. Second,
the release of the census data will be more timely by the use of the
NASS field offices to review the results. The 1997 Census of
Agriculture report is now planned to be released in December 1998,
almost 9 months ahead of any previous agricultural census. Third, the
Puerto Rican Census of Agriculture will make greater use of its
Department of Agriculture staff as well as to redesign the area frame
survey needed to do a better job of measuring small farms. Finally, a
new program to increase the coverage of minority farmers in the census
of agriculture is being implemented to reduce the 23 percent
undercoverage reported in the 1992 Census of Agriculture.
government performance and results act (gpra)
Mr. Skeen. GPRA, known as the Results Act, requires each executive
agency to issue, no later than September 30, 1997, a strategic plan
covering at least five years. In addition to a mission statement
grounded in legislative requirements, the plans are to contain general
goals and objectives that are expected to be outcome or results
oriented (such as to improve literacy) as opposed to output or activity
oriented (such as to increase the number of education grants issued).
What progress is the agency making in developing its strategic plan,
including defining its mission and establishing appropriate goals? Has
the agency identified conflicting goals for any of its program efforts?
If so, what are the performance consequences of these conflicting goals
and what actions--including seeking legislative changes--is the agency
taking to address these conflicts?
Response. NASS recently completed the third update of its Strategic
Plan originally developed in 1994. We have now incorporated the goals
of the USDA Research, Education and Economics (REE) mission area of
which NASS is a part. There are no conflicting goals.
Frankly, government activities such as statistics will be extremely
difficult to measure based on ``outcomes.'' Statistics provide
quantitative information that in turn is used to aid in decision
making. However, many other factors must be considered in decision
making; therefore, to attempt to isolate the statistical information
from other information seems impossible. Empirical studies of the
impact NASS statistics have on the efficiency of various commodity
markets have shown that there is a very positive public benefit derived
from the investment in basic statistics. There is also evidence that
the availability of statistical information promotes exports of U.S.
agricultural commodities, but again this would be impossible to measure
because of all the factors that contribute to the trade of agricultural
products in the world.
Mr. Skeen. Strategic plans must be based on realistic assessments
of the resources that will be available to the agency to accomplish its
goals. As you are developing your strategic plan, how are you taking
into account projected resources that likely will be available--
especially as we move to a balanced budget? What assumptions are you
making? How are you ensuring that your goals are realistic in light of
expected resources?
Response. NASS goals are public service oriented. We propose to
maximize statistical services to the agricultural sector as permitted
by budget. The demand for additional information for making decisions
continues to grow but we are not assuming comparable increases in
budget. Goals were developed with consideration to resource
availability, including the need to redirect resources from lower
priority programs to be able to respond effectively to the changes in
the agricultural industry. NASS's Strategic Initiative, Survey Design
2000, made the assumption that new funding would not be available to
support new demands for data for the growing horticultural industry or
the equine industry. Therefore, some other programs may need to be
reduced or discontinued in order to support expansion into these new
areas.
Mr. Skeen. For Congress, the heart of the Results Act is the
statutory link between agency plans, budget requests, and the reporting
of results. Starting with fiscal year 1999, agencies are to develop
annual performance plans that define performance goals and the measures
that will be used to assess progress over the coming year. These annual
goals are to measure agency progress toward meeting strategic goals and
are to be based on the program activities as set forth in the
President's budget. What progress have you made in establishing clear
and direct linkages between the general goals in your strategic plan
and the goals to be contained in your annual performance plans? OMB
expressed concern last year that most agencies had not made sufficient
progress in this critical area. More specifically, how are you
progressing in linking your strategic and annual performance goals to
the program activity structure contained in the President's budget? Do
you anticipate the need to change or modify the activity structure to
be consistent with the agency's goals? Overall, what progress has your
agency made--and what challenges is it experiencing--defining results-
oriented performance measures that will allow the agency and others to
determine the extent to which goals are being met?
Response. Performance goals have been incorporated into the
strategic plan within each of the general goals. Annual performance
plans will be established from the general performance goals and
include new performance goals for new budget initiatives.
The program activity structure in the President's budget provides
for an Estimates Program, Statistical Research, and the Census of
Agriculture. The NASS strategic plan serves all three areas. No change
in activity structure is anticipated.
NASS struggled with defining results-oriented performance measures
as have most other agencies. We involved all levels of the organization
to define agency performance measures and promoted the generation of
performance goals by individual units within NASS. Measures have been
put in place to determine our current standing relative to our goals.
Mr. Skeen. If applicable, what lessons did the agency learn from
its participation in the Results Act pilot phase and how are those
lessons being applied to agency-wide Results Act efforts? What steps is
the agency taking to build the capacity (information systems, personnel
skills, etc.) necessary to implement the Results Act?
Response. NASS did not participate in the pilot phase of the
Results Act. However, feedback was provided by OMB and the pilot
agencies that was useful for generating the NASS Strategic Plan and
performance measures. Being a statistical organization, NASS is well
positioned to use available information systems and personnel skills to
implement the Results Act. We are also cooperating and assisting other
agencies with customer service and GPRA measures.
Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to solicit and
consider the views of stakeholders as they develop the strategic plans.
Stakeholders can include state and local governments, interest groups,
the private sector, and the general public, among others. Who do you
consider to be your agency's primary stakeholders and who will you
incorporate their views into the strategic plans?
Response. NASS stakeholders include farm operators, agribusinesses,
agricultural sector services, processing, and cooperative
organizations, State Agriculture Departments, USDA and other federal
government entities, the media, employees, and the consuming public.
Stakeholder views were sought out and used in the development of the
strategic plan. Feedback and consultation is elicited every year
through NASS sponsored Data Users Meetings, which are held in different
locations around the country. NASS participation in farm organization
and industry meetings, and through consultation with the media as well
as State and National policy makers. The Census Advisory Committee on
Agriculture Statistics and the newly formed Research, Education,
Extension, and Economics Advisory Committee will be asked for input
into NASS's strategic plans this spring. A meeting with stakeholders is
also scheduled for March 25 when input will be obtained for NASS's
strategic plan.
Mr. Skeen. For the Results Act to be successful, agencies with
similar missions, goals, or strategies will need to ensure that their
efforts are coordinated. What other federal agencies are you working
with to ensure that your strategic plans are coordinated? What steps
have you taken to ensure that your efforts complement and do not
unnecessarily duplicate other federal efforts?
Response. NASS fully participates in the interagency committees and
professional organizations that serve and facilitate interaction among
statistical agencies. NASS interacts regularly with the Committee on
National Statistics at the National Academy of Sciences and the Council
on Professional Associations on Federal Statistics. NASS is an active
member of the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy, which was
created by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to improve the
coordination of all Federal statistical activities. Each of the members
of the Council have shared their strategic plans and performance
measures with the other members of the Council. NASS participates in
OMB statistical methodology committees, attends GPRA round table
discussions with other research organizations, takes leadership roles
in the American Statistical Association and Washington Statistical
Society, and sponsors/attends seminars where the programs of other
agencies are described. Comparisons of statistical services provided by
various agencies and cooperation (to the extent permitted by exiting
law) among the agencies serve to make sure programs are complementary.
Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to consult with
Congress as they develop their strategic plans. Since these plans are
due in September, now is the time for agencies to begin the required
consultations. What are your plans for congressional consultation as
you develop your strategic plan? Which Committees will you consult
with? How will you resolve differing views?
Response. All USDA mission areas/agencies have prepared draft
Strategic Plans which are currently being reviewed by an Under/
Assistant Secretary (or other relevant official), the Senior Policy
Staff, the Secretary, and OMB. Upon completion of the review, the
Department plans to provide copies of the Strategic Plan (including an
overall Departmentwide Executive Summary and the Strategic Plans for
individual mission areas/agencies) to relevant congressional
Committees. Thereafter, we will look forward to meeting with members or
staff to discuss our Strategic Plan and to solicit your input and
advice on refinements to the plan. We would plan to provide copies of
the Department's Strategic Plan to the following committees: House
Agriculture Committee, House Appropriations Committee; House Economic
and Educational Opportunities Committee, House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee, House Resources Committee, Senate Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Senate Appropriations Committee,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee.
Mr. Skeen. In passing the Results Act, Congress sought to
fundamentally change the focus of federal management and decision
making to be more results-oriented. Organizations that have
successfully become results-oriented typically have found that making
the transformation envisioned by the Results Act requires significant
changes in what they do and how they do it. What changes in program
policy, organization structure, program content, and work process has
the agency made to become more results-oriented? How are managers held
accountable for implementing the Results Act and improving performance?
How is the agency using Results Act performance goals and information
to drive daily operations?
Response. The NASS Strategic Plan focused the attention of
functional organization units on desired outcomes. Significant progress
has been achieved on four strategic initiatives that were developed
from the strategic plan. These initiatives were: Data System 2000,
Survey Design 2000, Leadership Program, and Customer Service Outreach.
As a result of these initiatives, we are now or soon will be oriented
to an interactive data based environment with more powerful analysis
tools available to employees. We are restructuring our list and area
frame surveys to support greater efficiency in future sampling. We have
instituted a new employee performance evaluation system and updated
employee development plans and career paths. Data customers have new
electronic routes to statistical data via an Internet web page and the
media are better served to get time critical data to the widest
possible audience in a more timely fashion.
Managers participated in developing performance measures and are
responsible for making the measurements by which current status is
determined relative to goals. They are held accountable to contribute
to progress toward stated goals.
NASS is using the Results Act to promote actions in daily
operations consistent with ``what gets measured gets done, and what
gets rewarded gets done well.'' As part of the Leadership Program
strategic initiative, the awards program was modified to provide for
recognition and rewards to employees who make significant contributions
toward NASS strategic goals.
[Pages 527 - 918--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
I N D E X
----------
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Page
Aflatoxin Research............................................... 69
Africanized Bees................................................. 84-86
Agriculture Research Investment.................................109-112
Alcohol Consumption.............................................. 82
Apple Fire Blight................................................ 13
Aquaculture Research............................................. 70-72
ARS Scientists and Staff-Year Ceilings..........................186-187
ARS Research Projects............................................ 14-15
ARS-Owned Aircraft............................................... 213
BARD............................................................. 31-32
Behoust, France.................................................. 214
Biodegradable Plastic............................................ 72
Biographical Sketches:
Catherine O'Connor Woteki.................................... 527
Floyd Horn................................................... 528
E.B. Knipling................................................ 529
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation (BRDC)........ 74-75
Blueberry/Cranberry Research..................................... 75
Brucellosis Research............................................. 76
Budget:
ARS Budget Requests.......................................... 33-38
ARS Program Requests, FY 1998................................ 40-44
Buildings and Facilities, Modernization.........................195-199
Canola Research.................................................. 76
Centers of Excellence............................................ 68
Citrus Tristeza Virus............................................ 77
Citrus Root Weevil............................................... 77
Contingency Fund................................................. 220
Cooperative Agreements........................................... 54-57
Corn Germplasm................................................... 109
CRADA's.......................................................... 69
CRIS Projects Termination.......................................138-183
Current Occupancy of ARS Facilities...........190-193, 208-212, 215-219
Dissemination of Research Information............................ 233
Explanatory Statement............................................ 609
Extramural Activities........................................46-52, 185
FDA Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition........ 233
Food Intake Survey............................................... 18
Fresno, California.............................................215, 230
Fungal Phytase................................................... 229
Genetically-Engineered Fruits and Vegetables..................... 233
Germplasm....................................................79-80, 136
Golden Nematode Research......................................... 11-12
Grape Virology................................................... 81
Grape Phylloxera................................................. 80-81
Grape and Wine Research.......................................... 13
Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket................................... 82
Guayule.......................................................... 83
Honey Bees....................................................... 86
Human Nutrition:
Human Nutrition Center at Little Rock, Arkansas.............. 17-18
Human Nutrition Initiative................................... 60-67
Human Nutrition Research..................................9-11, 137
I-R 4 Research................................................... 86
Integrated Pest Management Plan.................................. 231
Iowa State....................................................... 14
Jointed Goat Grass Control Research.............................. 87
Kenaf............................................................ 88
Laboratory Closures.............................................. 112
Late Blight Potato Research.....................................101-102
Leflar School of Law Agricultural Library........................ 222
Library Fees..................................................... 221
Location Administrative Support.................................132-134
Locoweed Research................................................ 89
Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture................................ 89-90
Lyme Disease.................................................90-91, 231
Major Issues in Research........................................184-185
Management Reductions...........................................125-129
Maricopa Agricultural Center..................................... 232
Methyl Bromide..........................................24, 91, 93, 230
Montpelier, France............................................... 214
Mushroom Research................................................ 93
NAL Object Class................................................. 221
NAL Information Centers.........................................223-225
NAL Usage........................................................ 108
NAL Repair and Maintenance....................................... 108
Narcotics Control Research....................................... 94
National Arboretum............................................... 94
New Research Facilities.......................................... 213
New Crops........................................................ 94-96
Northwest Small Fruits Research Center........................... 96
Nutrition Centers................................................ 16-17
Object Class Table............................................... 53
Patents.......................................................... 69
Peanut Research.................................................. 96
Pear Thrips...................................................... 96
Peas, Lentils, and Legumes....................................... 97
Pecan Research................................................... 97
Plant Gene Expression Center..................................... 98
Plant Science Base Budget........................................ 59
PM-10 Research................................................24-25, 50
Polyacrylamide................................................... 22
Post-Harvest Pathogen Reduction Research......................... 59
Potato Research..................................................99-101
Pre-Harvest Food Safety Research................................. 59
Project Terminations--ARS.......................................117-124
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Chairman Skeen............................................... 31
Mr. Livingston............................................... 228
Mr. Walsh.................................................... 229
Mr. Fazio.................................................... 230
Ms. DeLauro.................................................. 231
Mr. Pastor................................................... 232
Mr. Barcia................................................... 232
Repair and Maintenance........................................... 220
Research, Education, and Economics............................... 229
Savings:
Administrative Savings....................................... 45
Lapsed Salaries.............................................. 58
Soil and Water Research.........................................102-106
Southern Regional Research Center................................ 228
Soybean Research................................................. 106
Status of Current Activities....................................200-202
Steep II Research................................................ 202
Strategic Planning Task Force on Facilities.....................113-117
Strategic Plan and GPRA........................................200, 225
Streamlining Plans..............................................188-189
Sweet Potato Whitefly............................................ 203
Swine Research................................................... 68
Taxol Research................................................... 204
Technology Transfer.............................................. 205
Tobacco Research................................................. 206
Tropical/Subtropical Research.................................... 206
Urban Pest Control............................................... 207
Utilization Centers.............................................207-208
Vomitoxin........................................................ 232
Weslaco, Texas................................................... 215
Witness Statements:
Dr. Woteki................................................... 533
Dr. Knipling................................................. 549
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
1890 Institutions and Tuskegee University........................ 224
1890 Facilities Program.......................................... 288
4-H Youth Enrollment............................................281-282
Aflatoxin research, Illinois....................................291-292
Agency Audits.................................................... 237
Agrability....................................................... 292
Agricultural development in the American Pacific................409-410
Agricultural diversification and specialty crops, Hawaii........292-293
Alliance for food protection, NE, GA............................293-294
Alternative crops................................................ 250
Canola....................................................... 250
Crambe/Rapeseed.............................................. 250
Hesperaloe..................................................250-251
North Dakota................................................295-296
Alternative crops for arid lands................................294-295
Alternative fuels characterization lab..........................410-411
Alternative marine and fresh water species....................... 297
Animal health and disease research............................... 245
Animal medical drug use clarification act........................ 241
Animal Science Food Safety Consortium...........................297-299
Apple Fire Blight, Michigan and New York........................299-300
Aquaculture centers.............................................246-249
Aquaculture research............................................. 302
Illinois..................................................... 300
Louisiana.................................................... 301
North Carolina............................................... 303
Audit Reports.................................................... 285
Babcock Institute................................................ 303
BARD............................................................290-291
Barley feed for rangeland cattle, Montana.......................304-305
Beef improvement, Arkansas......................................426-427
Biodiesel research..............................................305-306
Biographical Sketches:
Catherine O'Connor Woteki.................................... 527
Floyd Horn................................................... 528
B.H. Robinson................................................ 530
Biotechnology, Oregon............................................ 306
Biotechnology risk assessment..................................291, 238
Broom snakeweed.................................................307-308
Buildings and Facilities......................................... 264
Canola research............................................250, 308-309
Capacity Building Grants Program...........................244-246, 256
Center for Agriculture and Rural development....................411-412
Center for Animal Health and Productivity.......................309-310
Center for Innovative Food Technology, Ohio.....................310-311
Center for North American Studies...............................412-413
Center for Rural Studies, Vermont...............................311-312
Chemical and non-chemical research appropriations...............444-445
Cheaspeake Bay aquaculture, Maryland............................312-313
Children, youth, and family networks funded by CSREES...............277
Children's nutrition research center................................285
Coastal cultivars...................................................313
Competitive Grants..................................................242
Competitiveness of agricultural products, Washington............313-315
Cool season legume research.........................................315
Cranberry/Blueberry disease and breeding, New Jersey............315-316
Critical agricultural materials.................................246-247
Critical issues.................................................316-317
Dairy and meat goat research....................................317-318
Data information system question................................413-415
Delta rural revitalization, Mississippi.........................318-319
Delta Teachers Academy..........................................427-429
Drought mitigation..............................................319-320
EFNEP...........................................................278-279
Environmental research, New York................................320-321
Environmental risk factors/cancer, New York.....................321-322
Expanded wheat pasture, Oklahoma................................322-323
Expert IPM decision support system..............................323-325
Explanatory Statement...............................................707
Extension activities............................................269-270
Extension Farm Management Education Project.....................429-430
Extension Specialist:
Arkansas....................................................429-430
Mississippi.....................................................430
Farm and rural business finance, Illinois and Arkansas..........325-326
Federal administration..........................................262-268
Floriculture, Hawaii................................................326
Food and Agricultural Policy Institute, Iowa and Missouri.......327-328
Food irradiation, Iowa..........................................328-329
Food Marketing Policy Center, Connecticut.......................329-330
Food and Nutrition..............................................288-290
Food Processing Center, Nebraska....................................331
Food Safety Initiative..........................................272-276
Food Systems Research Group, Wisconsin..........................331-332
Forestry research, Arkansas.....................................332-334
Fruit and vegetable market analysis, Arizona and Missouri...........334
Generic Commodity promotion, New York...........................334-335
Genome Mapping......................................................242
Geographic information system...................................415-417
Global change...................................................335-337
Global marketing support services, Arkansas.....................337-338
Good Laboratory Practice............................................240
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)...................442-444
Grass seek cropping systems for Sustainable Ag..................338-339
Gulf coast shrimp aquaculture...................................417-418
Hesperaloe......................................................250-251
Hispanic Education Partnerships Grants Program......................256
Iowa........................................................339-340
Louisiana...................................................340-341
New York....................................................341-342
Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology....................342-343
Improved dairy management practices, Pennsylvania...............343-344
Improved fruit practices, Michigan..................................344
Improved pest control...........................................257-261
Income enhancement demonstration................................430-431
Institute for food science and engineering, Arkansas............345-346
Integrated cow/calf management..................................431-433
Integrated pest management/biological control..............271, 346-347
Integrated production systems, Oklahoma.........................347-348
International Arid Lands Consortium.............................348-349
International Programs..........................................285-286
Iowa Biotechnology Consortium...................................349-350
IR-4 program and pesticide clearance............................239-240
Jointed Goatgrass...............................................350-351
Landscaping for water quality, Georgia..........................351-352
Livestock and dairy policy......................................352-353
Lowbush Blueberry research......................................353-354
Maple research..................................................354-355
Michigan Biotechnology Consortium...............................355-357
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance........................357
Midwest agricultural products, Iowa.............................357-358
Milk Safety, Pennsylvania.......................................359-361
Minor use animal drugs..........................................240-241
Mississippi Valley State University.............................419-420
Molluscan shellfish, Oregon.....................................361-362
Multi-commodity research, Oregon................................362-363
Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture, Hawaii...............363-364
Multicultural Scholars Program..................................284-285
National 4-H recognition model..................................283-284
National agricultural pesticide impact assessment...............286-288
National biological impact assessment program...................364-365
National Education Center for Agricultural Safety, Iowa.........418-419
National Research Initiative...................................239, 243
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.....................255-256
Nematode resistance genetic engineering.........................365-366
Nonfood agricultural products...................................366-367
North Central Biotechnical Initiative...........................367-368
Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico....................368-369
Organic Waste Utilization, New Mexico...........................369-370
Overhead rates................................................... 241
Peach tree short life, South Carolina...........................370-371
Peer Panels...................................................... 264
Pest containment and quarantine facility......................... 444
Pest control alternatives, South Carolina.......................371-372
Pest management for minor crops.................................373-374
Pesticide clearance.............................................373-374
Pesticide Data Program........................................... 240
Pesticide impact assessment program...................256, 272, 374-376
Pilot technology project, Wisconsin.............................433-434
Plant Genome Mapping............................................238-239
PM-10 Research................................................... 445
PM-10 Study.....................................................420-421
Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome.................... 246
Postharvest rice straw, California..............................376-377
Potato cultivars, Alaska........................................377-379
Preharvest food safety, Kansas..................................379-381
Prepared Statement............................................... 290
Project terminations.............................................
Questions Submitted For the Record:
Chairman Skeen............................................... 234
Mr. Fazio.................................................... 444
.............................................................
Rangeland research..............................................249-250
Range Policy Development, New Mexico............................434-435
Red River corridor, Minnesota and North Dakota..................381-382
Regionalized implications of farm programs......................383-384
Rice modeling...................................................384-386
Rural Center AIDS/STD Prevention, Indiana.......................435-436
Rural development centers..................................251, 279-281
Nebraska....................................................437-438
Oklahoma....................................................436-437
Rural partnerships, Nebraska....................................421-422
Rural rehabilitation, Georgia...................................438-440
Rural Policies Institute........................................386-387
Seafood harvesting, processing and marketing....................387-388
Small Business Innovation Research Program......................237-255
Small fruit research............................................388-389
Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water resources.....389-390
Soybean cyst nematode, Missouri.................................390-391
Spatial technologies for agriculture, Mississippi................ 391
Steep II-Water Quality in Pacific Northwest.....................391-393
Sustainable agriculture.......................................... 277
Michigan....................................................393-394
Nebraska....................................................394-395
Pennsylvania................................................. 393
SARE Program................................................251-254
Sustainable pest management for dryland wheat, Montana..........395-396
Swine wast management, North Carolina............................ 396
Technology Transfer Projects, Oklahoma and Mississippi..........440-441
Tillage, silviculture, and waste management, Louisiana..........396-397
Tobacco research................................................. 238
Tropical and subtropical research...............................397-399
Urban pests, Georgia............................................399-400
Viticulture Consortium, New York and California.................. 400
Water conservation, Kansas......................................400-402
Water management, Alabama.......................................402-403
Water quality...................................................403-404
Illinois....................................................422-424
North Dakota................................................424-426
Weed control, North Dakota......................................404-405
Wheat genetics, Kansas........................................... 406
Witness Statements:
Dr. B.H. Robinson............................................ 564
Wood Biomass....................................................441-442
Wood utilization research.......................................406-408
Wool research...................................................408-409
Youth at risk program............................................ 277
Economic Research Service
Agricultural Economic Information...............................470-471
Agricultural Practices..........................................449-451
Agricultural Institute in Turkey................................. 477
Biographical Sketches:
Catherine O'Connor Woteki.................................... 527
Floyd Horn................................................... 528
Susan Offutt................................................. 531
Biomass Initiative..............................................475-476
Budget Request................................................... 465
Buyout Authority................................................. 468
Chemical Use..................................................... 474
China and World Agricultural Markets............................472-473
Congressionally Mandated Studies................................. 461
Conservation Reports............................................. 474
Conservation Reserve Program Differences......................... 480
Cooperative Marketing of Grain................................... 461
Credit for Socially Disadvantaged Groups........................468-469
Credit Survey...................................................478-479
Dairy Policy..................................................... 473
Data Needs....................................................... 456
Data Funds....................................................... 448
Data Collection and NRI.........................................449-450
Data Purchases................................................... 460
Distribution of Flexibility Payments............................480-481
Economic and Physical Science Research Collaboration............. 471
Economic Impact on High Quality Environmental Amenities.........481-482
Environmental Policies and Trade................................476-477
Environmental Quality Incentives Program......................... 458
EQIP Rule Improvements..........................................458-459
EQIP Analysis.................................................... 459
ERS Offices...................................................... 478
Ethanol Industry and Fuel Oxygenates............................. 475
Explanatory Statement...........................................861-885
Farm Bill........................................................ 453
Farm Bill Changes................................................ 454
Farm Bill and Economic Research.................................. 452
Farm Income Implications......................................... 448
Farm Household Income...........................................446-447
Farm and Pesticide Use Data...................................... 448
Farm Practices..................................................448-449
Farm Employment.................................................. 466
Farming Operations............................................... 446
Food Program Delivery............................................ 462
Food Research Coordination....................................... 483
Food Prices...................................................... 474
Food Program and Economic Conditions............................462-463
Food Related Products...........................................482-483
Food Research Costs.............................................. 483
Foodborne Illness...............................................464-465
Foreign Ownership of U.S. Agricultural Land.....................467-468
GAO Reports...................................................... 477
Global Climate Change Spending................................... 478
Global Food Assessment........................................... 457
GPRA............................................................487-488
GPRA--Linking Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Goals.......484-485
GPRA--Statistical Expertise.....................................451-452
GPRA--Lessons Learned............................................ 485
GPRA--Progress In Developing ERS Strategic Plan.................483-484
GPRA--Performance Measures....................................... 451
GPRA--Consultations with Congress................................ 486
GPRA--Coordinating Strategies with Other Agencies................ 486
GPRA--Effects of Results Act on ERS Programs and Operation......486-487
GPRA--ERS Stakeholders..........................................485-486
GPRA--Projected ERS Resources.................................... 484
HACCP Compliance Costs........................................... 463
HACCP Costs Follow-Up...........................................463-464
HACCP Benefits and Costs......................................... 464
Historians....................................................... 470
Hypoxic Zone in Gulf of Mexico Research.......................... 482
Integrated Pest Management......................................450-451
Internet Information............................................457-458
Iowa State Research.............................................455-456
Marketing Opportunities.......................................... 465
Meat Industry Costs.............................................. 464
Model Access....................................................456-457
Modeling Capabilities............................................ 455
NAFTA Monitoring................................................. 466
National Research Council Review of ERS.......................... 470
National Income Accounts......................................... 482
Nutrition........................................................ 476
Nutrition Education.............................................. 462
Object Class..................................................... 468
Other Services................................................... 468
Performance in 1996.............................................469-470
Price and Income Variability in the Post-1996 Environment........ 472
Production Flexibility Contracts................................. 453
Public and Private R&D Expenditures.............................. 479
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Chairman Skeen............................................... 446
R&D Effects on Productivity...................................... 481
Risk Management Research........................................454-455
Rural Jobs and Income............................................ 467
Rural Development Partnership.................................... 467
Rural Credit Study............................................... 469
Rural Manufacturers.............................................. 475
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Barriers.............................. 479
Senior Executives................................................ 468
Slaughter Plant Models........................................... 464
Supply and Response under the 1996 Farm Bill....................473-474
Support of USDA Policymaking..................................... 471
Tax Reform....................................................... 469
Technical Assistance............................................. 477
Trade Impact of Technical Barriers............................... 479
Trade, Risk Management and Production...........................452-453
Transition to Post 2002.........................................453-454
User Fees........................................................ 457
Users of ERS Analyses...........................................471-472
Water Quality...................................................459-460
Welfare Reform................................................... 463
Witness Statements............................................... 584
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Agricultural Data Needs.......................................... 518
Appropriation Language........................................... 900
Available Funds and Staff Years.................................894-896
Biographical Sketches:
Catherine O'Connor Woteki.................................... 527
Floyd Horn................................................... 528
Donald Bay................................................... 532
Budget Request................................................... 511
Cattle Deaths.................................................... 523
Census of Agriculture:
Authorizing Legislation................................491, 523-524
Cycle Costs.................................................489-490
Data Collection.............................................. 489
Efficiency From Integration.................................. 492
Forms and Response Rate...................................... 491
Jeffersonville, IN Facility.................................. 517
Sampling Frames.............................................. 488
Staffing..................................................... 491
Status....................................................... 488
Childhood Injury Data............................................ 518
Computer Assisted Interviewing................................... 511
Cooperative Agreements..........................................496-504
Cooperative Research............................................. 496
Customer Service:
Customer Service Telephone Survey............................ 517
Feedback from Internet....................................... 492
Toll-free Number............................................. 515
Data Collection Costs...........................................518-519
Demand for Information........................................... 488
Economic Research Service Reimbursement.......................... 518
Enumerators....................................................493, 516
Estimates and Survey Changes..................................... 515
Explanatory Notes...............................................886-893
Farm Definition................................................489, 512
Geographic Breakdown of Obligations and Staff-Years.............. 907
GPRA:
Budget Initiative...........................................516-517
Consultations with Congress.................................525-526
Coordinating Strategies with Other Agencies.................. 525
Effect on NASS Programs and Operation........................ 526
Lessons Learned.............................................. 525
Performance Measures........................................524-525
Projected NASS Resources..................................... 524
Progress in Developing Strategic Plan........................ 524
Stakeholders................................................. 525
Hispanic Cheese.................................................. 522
International Technical Assistance............................... 494
Internet:
Customer Service............................................. 492
Home Page.................................................... 522
Justification of Increases and Decreases........................903-906
Land Area Based Survey........................................... 523
Loan Subsidy Rates............................................... 517
Mann Library..................................................... 522
Migrant Workers.................................................. 519
Milk Production.................................................519-521
Minority Farmer Coverage........................................515-516
National Resources Inventory..................................... 492
Number of Farms, Land in Farms..................................511-512
Object Classes:
Equipment.................................................... 516
Object Class Schedule........................................ 898
Other Services Object Class.................................. 514
Purchases from Government Accounts..........................514-515
Rental Payments.............................................. 516
Ongoing Services................................................. 494
Passenger Motor Vehicles......................................... 899
Performance in 1996.............................................. 516
Permanent Positions by Grade and Staff-Year Summary.............. 897
Pesticide Information............................................ 488
Prices Paid...................................................... 519
Project Statement................................................ 902
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Chairman Skeen............................................... 488
Riembursable Surveys............................................. 505
Remote Sensing................................................... 515
Reports:
Discontinued................................................. 494
Fees......................................................... 494
Internet..................................................... 492
Sold by Subscription......................................... 495
Special Surveys.................................................505-510
State Office Funding............................................. 493
Statistical Highlights of U.S. Agriculture....................... 522
Status of Program...............................................908-918
Strategic Plan:
Customer Outreach...........................................513-514
Data System 2000............................................. 513
Initiative Overview.........................................512-513
Summary of Increases and Decreases............................... 901
Training......................................................... 522
Wildlife Impact on Agricultural Production....................... 515
Witness Statement...............................................597-608