The farm balance sheet, United States, Jan. 1, 1940, 1952, and 1953

2 These deflated data reflect changes in the quantity of the physical assets of agriculture and changes in the quantity of goods and services that farmers could purchase with their financial assets.

Government payments.

VARYING WEIGHT YIELD OF MARKETED BEEF

I

Mr. HUNTER. I believe your statistics reflect a larger amount of beef this year than last. I was wondering whether you measure that on the basis of the number of animals or the number of pounds. have been told now by a number of cattlemen in California that they are slaughtering cattle at lesser weights, from 1,000 to 1,100 pounds, whereas formerly it was from 1,400 to 1,600 pounds. So possibly we do not have as much beef as we think we have, even though we have more animals.

Mr. WELLS. The estimates which I think most people are referring to now are numbers of cattle, hogs, and so forth, on hand January 1. The yield or production from those numbers varies from year to year depending upon the market situation, upon feeding rates, and upon whether or not we have drought. However, there is a long-term trend toward producing more meat per breeding animal, but that is a slow and gradual effect, so the actual production does differ from time to time in relation to numbers on hand; that is correct.

Mr. HUNTER. If that could be gotten out to the public, it might be valuable. I have a problem something like Mr. Andersen's, where the impression is gained that we are going to move more beef than actually will prove to be the case, and that tends to depress prices.

If it could be ascertained that actually in total pounds of beef we may have less than we had in 1952, although the 1952 number of animals may have increased, it would be well to make such information public so as to correct the erroneous impression.

Mr. WELLS. We do obtain statistics through the Federal Inspection Service and otherwise on the actual slaughter and production of meat by weeks and months. And I think the major disturbing influence over the last several weeks has been the fact that the market receipts of cattle have been running about 20 percent above a year ago. I am under the impression that the total live weight, or actual beef production, has been running about 20 percent above a year ago. That is an immediate market situation. I think people should also understand, however, in the case of hogs, exactly the reverse is true. Pork production is down substantially, 15 to 20 percent.

TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AND RELATED EMPLOYMENT

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Wells stated that the on-the-farm population of the United States comprises only 15 percent of the total population. Do you know roughly the percentage of the population which is engaged in activities related to agriculture in one way or another?

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Congressman, I am sure that for every farm person there is another person who is engaged in directly handling, transporting, or selling farm products or whose livelihood otherwise depends on agriculture this includes the bankers-so at least a third of the population of the United States has a direct and immediate interest in agriculture and the products thereof. Further, I think the question of the relationship between farm and urban prosperity is actually much wider than that.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Are there any other questions, gentlemen?
We will continue at 9:30 Monday morning.

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1953.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Gentlemen, we will proceed.

ECONOMIC INVESTIGATIONS

RESEARCH TO DETERMINE MOST PROFITABLE USE OF FERTILIZER

Mr. Wells, when you finished Friday, we had come down to increases. I note that you are asking for $100,000 additional for the purpose of determining the most profitable use of fertilizer.

Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir; we are.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Now, in connection with that, will you tell me what BAE can do in adding to the general knowledge in this field beyond the work of the State experiment stations and the Bureau of Plant Industry? Just where do you fit into the picture?

Mr. WELLS. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Sherman Johnson explain that?

Mr. ANDERSEN. We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, we would plan to work with the State experiment stations on this problem and also with the Bureau of Plant Industry. There are, of course, two questions involved in every production problem. One of them is the question, Will it work? And the other one is, Will it pay? The Bureau of Plant Industry and agronomists in the State experiment stations have experiments indicating the physical responses to the use of the fertilizers. Very little has been done so far on the question of the most profitable use or will it pay? We need to translate the results from the physical experiments into the amount that would be most profitable for farmers to use under different kinds of economic conditions; that is, with different prices. for the product, and different prices of fertilizer.

This proposed increase would enable us to set up cooperative work with the State experiment stations in different parts of the country. to work with them on that problem. It is especially important at the present time because farmers are spending about a billion dollars a year for commercial fertilizer and lime which is also involved in the problem. There will be more fertilizer available in the years ahead. In the situation that we seem to be confronted with at the present time, with softening of farm prices, there is need for reconsideration of profitable use of fertilizer. Should farmers use more or less fertilizer in the prospective economic situation that we are facing? In a good many areas it looks like using more fertilizer and shifting to more hay and pasture, might be considered something of a balance. wheel in adjustment. That is farmers might consider the possibility of shifting to improved hay and pasture, using fertilizer (and lime where it is needed) instead of cash crops, or feed grain crops. This shift might acually reduce costs very considerably. We have done a little work with Michigan State College in the last 2 or 3 years which indicates that dairy farmers can reduce costs as much as 35 percent and increase incomes much more by making that kind of a shift. We feel that by arranging cooperative studies in different sections of the country, we could point out that kind of cost-reducing opportunities. But it would be in cooperation, Mr. Chairman, with the State experiment stations, both with the agricultural economics departments and the agronomy departments in the State experiment stations and with the Bureau of Plant Industry here.

Mr. ANDERSEN. On Friday, Mr. Horan suggested a question which I asked him to leave until this time. Will you ask that question now, Mr. Horan.

Mr. HORAN. I am, of course, very well aware of the fact that we have been doing experimental work in the field of fertilizers since the beginning of time. I just do not get much out of your justification for the additional $100,000. To my certain knowledge, every college that has any agriculture department or anything where agronomy is being taught, has been carrying on work of this nature since the founding of the colleges; that is what we founded them for. It seems to me we should go pretty slow unless we understand what the Federal Government is going to do in that field. To me, BAE exists to coordinate this work and not necessarily to do it. I would just like to know the technique, Mr. Wells, of how you go about trying to make the most of the taxpayer's dollar. This is not a Federal tax situation alone. They are not the only taxes that some of our folks have to face. Certainly, the Federal Government has a job here of coordination which has never been explained to me. I have been on this committee 8 years now and I have asked certain people in these Federal bureaus just how you go about making the most of the solid work that is being done in all of our colleges. Of course, we have the Grasslands Committee in which I assume all of our land-grant colleges and others are participating.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is right.

Mr. HORAN. I assume, although you did not mention it, that that is about what you are asking this request for. It is a noble thing, but why it should cost so much money is beyond me.

Mr. JOHNSON. There is also a cooperative Land Grant CollegeDepartment Fertilizer and Lime Committee, similar to the Grasslands Committee. Both of them have gone into this question and both of them are very much of the opinion that there is real need for studying the economic aspects of using both fertilizer and lime, especially on grasslands.

Mr. HORAN. Let us assume that is being done at a place where it can be best done, which is the land-grant colleges. For many years my neighbors have been sending in soil samples to Washington State College and presumably Washington State College is increasingly aware of practically all the soil and soil conditions in the State of Washington. What I am trying to find out is just where does the BAE fit into this and why the $100,000?

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Horan, I think it is quite true that the various State experiment stations have carried forward a great many experiments on application of fertilizer at specific rates to specific soils and specific crops. I think it is also true that the most of those have been experiments which the natural scientists set up to test one particular combination of fertilizer and land.

For the last several years, both myself, Mr. Salter who was chief of the bureau, Bureau of Plant Industry, and more recently Mr. Moseman who is now chief, have been trying to get our farm management and soils and fertilizer people closer together and we are interested I know the State experiment stations are also interested in how these things actually apply at the farm level and we are interested in something about the range of response. In other words, as you use more or less fertilizer rather than just a particular quantity, what happens-what are farmers doing under actual farm conditions?