ing plants, in sizing and packing chicken parts in containers of exact predetermined weights. The line essentially consists of two components: (1) a parts classifier (by weight) with bins for receiving classified parts; and (2) a packing station equipped with a scale and "memory system." To pack seven drumsticks in a 1-pound package, six "sized" parts are placed in an empty package on the packing-station scale. A light then flashes over the bin from which the seventh drumstick must come to give the exact 1-pound weight. Estimates are that this equipment can save up to $100,000 annually in a large plant by reducing the amount of meat given away in overweight packages. The reduction in packing and weighing labor also should be sizable. However, because of unpredictable variations in part sizes between flocks and the initial cost, general acceptance of this equipment may be slow. 9. New process developed for determining the suitability of artificially dried corn for commercial uses.-AMS marketing research engineers have developed a quick and inexpensive process-and a device for performing the process— that can detect damage to corn due to overheating during drying, through measurement of changes in hydroscopic properties of corn as a replacement for timeconsuming and expensive laboratory processes. Commercial users can employ the new process in selecting corn that will meet their individual requirements for wet milling and other end uses, as well as for safe storage. It can be performed by unskilled labor and can be applied routinely along with other grading standards. Development of this process represents a substantial "breakthrough" in providing a satisfactory measure of the suitability of corn for processing and storage and can effect savings to the industry amounting to many thousands of dollars annually. Applications for public patents on both the process and the device are being filed. 10. Improved method developed for precooling celery.-A new sprinkler system for hydrocooling celery packed in wirebound boxes and stacked on pallets, has been developed as a replacement for the conventional method in which one crate at a time is moved through a commercial tunnel-type hydrocooler. Tests of the sprinkler system show that handling costs were reduced 66 percent (from 3 cents to 1 cent per crate) and the cooling rate (time) was reduced nearly 50 percent. Water and power consumption rates were slightly increased. Savings in handling costs would amount to $9.60 per equivalent carload. Ownership costs of a tunnel-type hydrocooler would be eliminated. Distribution of work effort During fiscal year 1963, 66 line projects were completed or discontinued and 72 were initiated. A total of 235 were active at the beginning of 1964. The resources of the marketing research program were used in 1963 and are planned in 1964 and 1965 in the following principal areas of work: Mr. WHITTEN. We are glad to have with us Dr. Nyle C. Brady, Director of Science and Education. Dr. Brady, we have followed the practice heretofore of having included in the record a résumé of the background and experience of those appearing for the first time. We will be glad to have a brief statement from you if you care to present one prior to turning to Dr. Shaw who deals with the day-to-day operations. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT BY DR. BRADY Dr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am indeed pleased to meet with you to discuss the proposed programs and budgets of the Agricultural Research Service, the largest research agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. May I make a few introductory comments before asking Dr. Shaw and his associates to report to you? As for background on myself: I am a native of Colorado, having been born in a rural community in southern Colorado. My elementary and high school education was taken there. I got my B.S. degree from Brigham Young University in 1941, my Ph. D. at North Carolina State College in 1947, at which time I moved to Cornell University where I have been since. Before coming with the Department, I was head of Cornell's Agronomy Department. I have had some experience away from that institution, having worked for about 7 months down at the TVA. My profession is that of a soil scientist. As you know, the position which I hold, Director of Science and Education, was set up by Secretary Freeman last December 1. Four agencies in the Department report to the Secretary through my office. They are the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research Service, the Federal Extension Service, and the National Agricultural Library. In addition to working with these very important research and education agencies, I have been given the responsibility of coordinating all research and education activities in the Department. Also, Secretary Freeman has designated me as the Department's representative on the Federal Council for Science and Technology which has the responsibility for interdepartmental coordination of research and education. He has also asked me to work with the State experiment station directors in improving the coordination of our total national agricultural research program. Although I have been on the job for less than 3 months, I have been very much impressed with the research and education activities in the Department of Agriculture. I have likewise been impressed with the leadership in the various research agencies in the Department and with their willingness to critically evaluate their staff and programs and, when appropriate, to make necessary changes to improve them. May I cite an example to illustrate this point. The research agency heads throughout the Department are cooperating in an internal study to determine if their scientists have good opportunities to keep up to date in their subject matter fields and if they are using these opportunities. The National Agricultural Library is making a survey to ascertain the availability of library facilities to Department scientists. An internal committee is being set up to evaluate the training and retraining opportunities for our research and education employees. We are proud of the competence and accomplishments of USDA scientists. We want to help them maintain and even improve their high research and education standards. The Department has a long history of working cooperatively with the State experiment stations in carrying out their joint research re 30-087-64-pt. 2-2 sponsibilities. We are currently considering ways of formalizing our planning and coordinating efforts with the State experiment station directors. Our aim will be to develop jointly with them truly national agricultural research programs which will accomplish the greatest possible research output with the State, Federal, and other funds at our disposal. As I call on the Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service, may I make a personal observation concerning this man and his associates. In my opinion, agricultural research throughout this country is deeply indebted to Dr. Byron T. Shaw. He has taken the leadership in developing one of the strongest intramural research programs in the Federal Government. At the same time his agency has developed good working relationships with the other Federal and State research organizations and has a record of keeping the Congress well informed of its activities. We are proud of Dr. Shaw and his associates and are pleased to have them present their plans at this time. Mr. WHITTEN. We appreciate your statement, Dr. Brady, and we are pleased to have you make the statements about Dr. Shaw. Those of us on the committee are familiar with his interest and his efforts, and those of his associates. Through the years we have learned some of the problems he has in dealing with other agencies and departments of the Federal Government and other groups throughout the country. It is not always easy to get Health, Education, and Welfare, the military, or certain other groups in the field of research to recognize the absolute need for thought to be given to the various sides of these problems. Dr. Shaw, we shall be glad to have your general statement. However, I think at this point, since you are here primarily to justify the budget for the Department, you might tell us what work has been eliminated in the budget and where the facilities are, and things of that sort. I think with that before us your general statement will probably mean a little more to us. Also we would like to know what limitations have been imposed on you in the use of manpower and things of that sort. SOUTHEASTERN UTILIZATION RESEARCH LABORATORY May I say too, we would be interested in what your plans are in connection with this southeastern laboratory that the Congress authorized last year. And for the record, it was agreed by the conferees at that time that this laboratory would not in any way replace the work nor the activities at the New Orleans laboratory. I mention that at this point, because we do not want you to do a lot of planning which is not in accord with the intent of the Congress. So you might cover that first, if you will, and then present your statement. Dr. SHAW. On the Southeastern Utilization Research Laboratory, our plans are to build a laboratory similar in design to the other four regional laboratories we now have. It is intended that we would work on poultry utilization research there, and on fruits and vege tables of the South. Our new crops program would be located in this location. Also, we intend to work on oilseeds. Mr. WHITTEN. We are opposed to moving oilseed work from New Orleans. Dr. SHAW. We have had the work on cottonseed at New Orleans, and we had intended to have the cottonseed work done at the southeastern laboratory, along with other oilseed work. Mr. WHITTEN. Did you not understand the agreement of the Congress-that this was not to be used to transfer work from New Orleans? Dr. SHAW. I had not understood that, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. That was the agreement, and we had better get that straight. You might proceed. Dr. SHAW. There was a statement in the conferees' report that work on peanut quality would be continued at New Orleans. Mr. WHITTEN. The agreement was that in creating this new laboratory it was not to supplant or take away from the work at New Orleans. Dr. SHAW. I had not had that information before, sir. 1965 BUDGET DECREASES Mr. WHITTEN. Well, you might proceed. What research work is being cut out by the budget that is before you, and where would this be located, and what is the nature of it? Dr. SHAW. We have a reduction of $264,000 on research, at some small field locations, which is being completed or that is recommended for termination because of lower priority. Mr. WHITTEN. Would you list those? Dr. SHAW. Termination of breeding, nutrition, and management research on marten, foxes, and mink at Peterburg, Alaska, is proposed. Mr. HORAN. What page? Dr. SHAW. I am reading from page 33 of the explanatory notes. We were spending $25,500 at this location and expect to discontinue that work. Poultry feeding, physiology, and management research at Glendale, Ariz., where we are now spending $40,200, is expected to be eliminated. Research on the control of water-stargrass and pond weeds at Clarkedale, Ark., where we are spending $14,800, is to be discontinued. Research on the biology and control of insects affecting tobacco at Quincy, Fla., $14,000, is to be eliminated. Research on the biology and control of insects and spider mites affecting cotton at Tallulah, La., where we are spending $48,000, would be eliminated. Studies of gully control procedures for use on the Connecticut River terraces at Durham, N.H., at $22,500 would be eliminated. The research on the isolation, identification, mode of infection and nature and extent of damage by pathogens associated with diseases of white clover at Durham, N.H., where we are spending $13,500, would be eliminated. Research on irrigated soils at University Park, N. Mex., where we are spending $19,500, would be discontinued. Research on the biological control and methods of detection of the European chafer and methods of treatment of infested nursery stock at Geneva, N.Y., $11,000, would be discontinued. Research related to irrigation and to control or modification of wind, water, and soil movement at Mitchell, Nebr., where we are spending $27,500, would be eliminated. Research on cotton genetics at Brownsville, Tex., where we are spending $14,500, would be discontinued. And research on biology and control of insects affecting sugarbeets and vegetables at Logan, Utah, $13,000, would be discontinued. There was also a $50,000 decrease in the budget proposed for the imported fire ant program. Mr. WHITTEN. Now, I ask this because in many particulars the budget before us is unrealistic, both with regard to the temper of the Congress and with regard to some of the work. AGRICULTURAL MARKETING RESEARCH Dr. Shaw, what cuts have been made in the marketing research funds and where are they applied? Dr. SHAW. In the Agricultural Marketing Service you mean? Mr. WHITTEN. Is that in your field? Dr. SHAW. It is not under my direction, no, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. In other words, you are limited to the Agricultural Researce Service, you and Dr. Brady? Dr. SHAW. Well, no. Dr. Brady has Mr. WHITTEN. Well, he has got three other groups, but he does not have anything to do with marketing research? Dr. SHAW. Except to coordinate that research with the other. Mr. WHITTEN. Well, that means to keep you all on speaking terms. What power does he have? That is what you have to judge these things by. Can he knock any heads together? What power does he have? Dr. SHAW. Perhaps he should answer this. Mr. WHITTEN. Dr. Brady, what power do you have? The reason I am asking is we have become more and more disturbed about the fact that it looks like we are building up two systems of research here. The other day I went to get the compilation of the laws having to do with agriculture. I looked and looked and began to think that I had lost what little training I had in bibliography. Then I discovered that you have two separate compilations published by the Department. So you have nothing to do with marketing research as such in your capacity, Dr. Shaw? Dr. SHAW. Not administering it. I do have the responsibility of working with Dr. Brady in coordination, which involves examination of their projects, and so on. But I do not have anything to do with determining the projects. Mr. WHITTEN. Lets take cotton, which is an easier subject than some for me. Just explain cotton starting back with the seed and going all the way from the work on seeds and oils, to work on boll |