the farthest point out in our knowledge. You will notice that the curve did go up rather rapidly beginning about 1920, but it seems to be leveling off.

The

Let us look at the Iowa average production of corn per acre. dashed broken line in this case represents the average yield of corn in Iowa year by year from 1870 up to the present time. You will observe that from 1870 up to about 1937, a period of 67 years, the frontier possibilities for the average Iowa farmer increased only 2% bushels per acre. Then all of a sudden from 1937 to 1944, there was a rise of 15 bushels to the acre, followed by another leveling off. If we look at this Iowa average curve in comparison with the experimental yields in the Iowa variety test it seems to me that it is somewhat apparent that this rise was in response to the one in the research curve with a time delay in this case of about 20 years.

Now let us look at the United States average corn production per acre. It followed the same pattern as the Iowa average from 1870 up to 1935-37, but it took about 9 years longer before it rose appreciably. It didn't start going up until the late forties. The highest average yield per acre we have obtained in the United States was in 1948, about 43 bushels to the acre.

It seems to me that the United States average will go a little higher. I have drawn the dashed level projection on the United States average curve the same distance from the Iowa curve that they were apart for 67 years. In other words, the only assumption involved in this situation is that the relationship between Iowa and United States farmers as a whole will remain about the same as it has been. Again, if we are going to change this picture, the research curve needs to be started up again. We need to break some more research ceilings. If we do we will expect to have the average yield in Iowa rise again with a time delay behind the research rise and for the United States as a whole a further time delay behind the Iowa yield.

RELATION OF PRICES TO FARM PRACTICES

Mr. WHITTEN. Doctor, I am a strong believer in the benefits of research and the necessity for it, and I quoted you last year and expect to do so from your presentation this year. But I do think it would be well to point out here what we have so strongly urged through the years. That is that the matter of price received by the farmer enters into this picture, because it is when the price is comparative to the rest of the economy, that farmers buy the better strains of hens to produce the increased number of eggs. It is when the price received is sufficient to enable them to buy the fertilizers and the better grades of seed corn, that corn production is up. It is my theory at least and I think it is borne out by the record through the years, that where the farmer sells on an unprotected market in periods of low consumption we place the greatest drain on our soil fertility. We have had much less production than the soil really would have made if the farmer had had the money to put in it for proper fertilizer, rotation, and so forth.

As evidence of what this means, I received not less than 2 weeks ago a report on a broad section of the trade in the manufacture, distribution and sale of fertilizers. This time last year they had sold 40 percent of their total year's sales. This year they have sold 8 percent

of last year's total sales. We know farm prices, prices received for farm products are down. The minute the price goes down, apparently, farmers start reducing or doing without fertilizer and your production levels off or falls back per acre. So while this doesn't detract from your point that research is highly needed, this matter of price received is going to seriously enter into the followup on what your research shows is possible.

Dr. SHAW. Mr. Whitten, I agree with your observations completely. I had expected to treat that point in my summary, but now that you have brought it up, from the period of 1935-39 where we have had these rapid rises, you are absolutely right that price has been the thing that has encouraged the adoption of research findings. Now, you have to have the two things: you must have the idea to adopt and then you must have an incentive to get it adopted. We can do something about these curves in terms of the average yield other than through research. Better educational methods could be expected to narrow this gap. If we could have prices for agricultural products relative to other prices, that were better than what they are, we could expect that this level would be still higher. And I am sure, in terms of the adoption of these new practices, that prices are perhaps the most important factor in their adoption.

Mr. WHITTEN. You have to keep getting answers to have something else to adopt.

Dr. SHAW. We had to have this possibility of rise, then some incentive to adopt the improved practices. As you say, with prices going down as they are today, the only thing that can happen to these yields is to come down. That has been demonstrated over and over again. Farmers will be trying to reduce costs wherever they can reduce them. Certainly in terms of fertilizer there is a very good correlation between the farmers' previous year's income and the next year's purchase of fertilizer.

IMPORTANCE OF SOIL CARE AND EDUCATION

I would like to call your attention to another point on this United States average curve in reference to your statement, Mr. Whitten. If you will notice on the broken line for United States average corn production per acre from the period of about 1906 clear over to about 1936, we were on the downgrade as far as production per acre in the United States is concerned. I am satisfied that decline was associated with soil deterioration. We have raised that now to a point higher than we ever had it before with increased fertilizers and with the possibilities of hybrid corn, and there is some possibility of carrying it still further.

Mr. ANDERSEN. The development of hybrids, of course, gave it a big boost, did it not, Doctor?

Dr. SHAW. The hybrids provided the possibilities of the boost and then with associated management practices, including the use of more fertilizers along with the hybrids, we were able to achieve the 15bushel increase.

Mr. ANDERSEN. You mentioned one thing, before we leave this particular chart, that perhaps as time goes on educational work will lessen the spread between the Iowa average line and the experimental line. I think you are absolutely right that in egg production or any

production, general knowledge will get to such a point as to bring those lines closer together.

Dr. SHAW. As we do a better job of getting that information out to the farmer, we ought to be able to narrow these gaps. It is obvious, however, that when we didn't have the new idea, progress was slow. Mr. ANDERSEN. That is correct.

Dr. SHAW When we have the new idea, it can be rapid.

Mr. HUNTER. Dr. Shaw, how do you account for the fact that Iowa is about 10 years ahead of the national average as far as the rather sudden and marked increase in corn production is concerned?

Dr. SHAW. The first successful hybrid that we developed in the United States was at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. That was in 1917. At that time, research men knew hybrid corn was coming for the United States, but that was on one experimental plot and we only had the one double cross hybrid.

It was necessary to develop hybrids adapted to the soil and climatic conditions of every one of the States. The Corn Belt was the first to take it up because corn was so important to them. The experiment stations in the Corn Belt and the United States Department of Agriculture really went to work on that problem in earnest. The kind of curve that I show for Iowa would be about the same as you would have in any of the other Corn Belt States. They were out in front. Then as you moved into areas where corn was relatively less important in the total economy, farmers were slower taking it up. About 80 percent of the farmers in the Nation are now using hybrids. Corn is not as important in some areas as it is in the Corn Belt and, therefore, some farmers haven't yet adopted the use of hybrids.

Mr. WHITTEN. It is only in the last 6 or 8 years you have had a successful hybrid for the Southern States. It took a long time to ever come up with a hybrid that was adapted for that area.

Dr. SHAW. Yes, it has been only since 1945 that we have had hybrids and the practices to go along with them for the South. We are now already getting some significant increases in corn production. in that area.

PORK PRODUCTION PER HUNDRED POUNDS OF FEED

The next chart I have (fig. 4) concerns pork production per hundred pounds of feed.

(The chart referred to follows:)

Dr. SHAW. To represent a research frontier in this case, I have used our experimental work at Beltsville where we have a record-ofperformance feeding test going on year by year. We use 50 litters of pigs in the test and I have taken the top litter in that test each year to represent the research frontier. You will notice that in the production of the top litter, in terms of pounds of pork per hundred pounds of feed, there has been a significant advance from around 26 pounds of pork per hundred pounds of feed in 1930 to about 31 pounds of pork per hundred pounds of feed in 1940. In other words, that is about a 20-percent increase.

You will notice also that since 1940 we haven't extended the frontier very much. It has leveled off. It is hard to hold it to that high level. As you look at that curve and then look at the average United States production per hundred pounds of feed, you will notice that there hasn't yet been any reflection of this research advance in terms of average production. In other words, production hasn't gone up in response to the research advance. The most likely reason for this is that this is the period during which we were developing hybrid hogs in experimental work. The hybrid hogs were coming into the test and they were coming out as the top litters. In other words, we have a situation there of the hybrid vigor and our improved nutritional methods bringing about a rather significant increase in pork production per hundred pounds of feed. The reason it has not yet showed up in the United States average is that hybrid hogs have been available for the public at large only about 3 years. There are relatively few of these hybrids at the present time and the numbers are not sufficient to have any significant effect on the United States average production.

This is a more optimistic picture than the one I had for egg production per hen or corn production per acre, because it does appear that there is a potential rise in the future over the current United States average pork production per hundred pounds of feed. It will be something that will come slowly because, among other things, it would involve a rather widespread adoption of hybrid hogs. That may or may not occur, but you would expect a significant amount of it to occur. It is going to take a long while and so the increase in pork production per hundred pounds of feed will be a gradual one. Mr. MARSHALL. Dr. Shaw, will that mean that you are maintaining or improving the quality or pork along with it?

Dr. SHAW. These pigs that were used in this experiement are the ones we are breeding for a better meat-type hog, along with the hybrid vigor. I think it does mean, as you say, that we are going to get a better quality pork along with this greater efficiency in feed utilization. In this case, this will offset, to some extent, the fact that corn yields are likely to level off. If we can get more pork for the corn we have; the one will offset the other somewhat.