Midwest Governors Panel Discussion on Food Power with Congressman Paul Findley, Dr. Lester Brown, Dr. Norman Borlaug, and panel chairman Hubert Humphrey.
Read the Text Transcription of the Audio.
I first panelist. Is it honorable Paul Findley Congressman Findlay is a member of the House of Representatives serving the Illinois since the 1960s is a member of the House committee on agriculture and Foreign Affairs and I served as chairman of the house committee on Western alliances Congress and Findlay has been a delegate to the North Atlantic assembly in Brussels and to the 11th and 12th. NATO parliamentarian conference. He is the author of the federal Farm Fable and has an impressive list of honors and service to various organizations. It isn't often that I give such a glowing introduction to it. Well knowing the card-carrying Republican, but I'm happy to do it today in friendship and in the spirit of comedy and AmityI congratulate these distinguish governors. On selecting the world food crisis as the topic for today's agenda because the challenge of feeding the world's expanding population is indeed formidable and it deserves the attention of all thoughtful citizens. The American people will I am sure? Respond to the challenge was substantial aid for both famine relief and for famine prevention in the years ahead just as they have in the past. I don't think any Pam panel members will disagree on that point. The central question we ought to deal with is is this can the American people do a still better job and meeting this Challenge and if so how and even more fundamental to that what should be the relationship of the federal government do these activities? My suggestions are these first of all concerning famine relief. I recommended change in public law 480 the food for peace program. So that donations of grain for famine relief can occur legally regardless of whether the green involved happens to be in Surplus position or not. Under the present bl480 law of the secretary of agriculture technically cannot authorize donations for famine relief. Unless it he finds that these Commodities are not required for a dollar sales or for any domestic purpose. And the price is low level of stocks makes these conditions for the very first time in the history of po480 important our experience with famine really shows it on an average 300 million dollars a year in donations is required and I recommend that this song be appropriated annually for famine relief with authority to the secretary to acquire the stocks the supplies as market and famine conditions might warrant. Let's change will establish a famine relief Grand Reserve upon which stricken areas Kandy pen with us change. No one can properly charge that the charitable instincts of the US government or only Surplus deep. And this famine relief Reserve I strongly believe is the only grain Reserve our federal government should establish at this time. I know that a resolution will be taken up by the governor's tomorrow recommending government grain reserves. And I hope the governor's will take a close look at it before. Making a final decision. concerning famine prevention I propose that the American people acting through their Governors and the state legislatures as well as the the Congress and the executive branch of the federal government adopt a long-term program that our own experience proves to be sound let us invest in the education of farmers in these developing food deficit countries, and I'm not talking about the short term broadside technical assistance programs of the past and the present over the past Century Are state governments working closely with the federal government have adopted in this nation the finest agricultural support system the world has ever known the system of land grant colleges of agricultural through hep C highly-skilled profession of food production has been established and constantly improved over the years. Nowhere else nowhere else is the vocation of Agriculture. So exalted and so successful as here in this country. And much of the credit for this belongs to the land grant system which involves classroom training of farmers extension training of farmers out on the field as well as research directed to the local needs and requirements. Enter my view of the greatest contribution that the American people could make to prevent World famine would be to help these developing countries establish their own land grant system through which each can build its own reliable and Progressive food production system. It will require patience. It will require patience over long. Of time as well require commitment. But based on our own experience here in this country, it will work. And for this purpose I recommend that the federal government. What the cooperation of course of the governors and state legislatures convert the resources of the foreign aid program into long-term contracts for agricultural education abroad. Let me illustrate how this would work under a typical contract the College of Agriculture of the University of Minnesota or the College of Agriculture of the University of Illinois. What be given 10 years a 10-year contract during which time it would help. India for example to establish to organize and to staff a land-grant type agricultural educational institution one complete with classroom extension and Research Services. I pick India for no particular reason except that illustrates the need for this type agricultural support system. India has the rainfall at has a soil that has the climate to produce enough food for twice the present population of India. There is no doubt about it. That's well-established. All that Indian needs is well trained. Well motivated farmers who are equipped with the right tools. And give him those tools given that motivation and you can provide for its own food needs investment and agricultural education makes sense of broad as it does here at home. This program will not have the excitement in the drama. Of shiploads of donated weed streaming endlessly day after day to a food deficit country. But in time it will build the foundation for a successful and injuring self-help on the on the part of the needy countries instead of creating dependency and innocence despondency as often occurs with one hand out to get to be a habit this program. Will Bill self sufficiency as well as self respect. And in the long term, it will help the development developing countries become good customers for American products of all kinds including food products properly handled and coordinated with education and population control land-grant education can prevent famine worldwide and I believe that can accomplish this vital go within our lifetime. These comments are on the positive side and now just a few words of warning about some of the proposals that have been made and perhaps will be made concerning the world food situation. First of all, it seems to me that Washington and perhaps other parts of the country. Are on a government grain stockpile kick that to say the least is premature what is needed today is food production by the private sector and not supply management grain stockpiling by the government our secretary of agriculture Earl Butz, I think deserves a rousing cheer for coming loose. The maximum production capacity of all of the cropland of this nation. He would have done it sooner had the public law permitted us to be done. But even this year we might recall when the first for the first time in twenty years, all of our crop land has been available for planting without restriction dolphin voice has complained that this action would produce a glut and warned our department against taking that action. So I think at this conference on world food supply Master bus deserves credit for putting first things first that is getting full production underway. For the first time in many years. The federal government is substantially out of the grain business. And for the first time in a long time grain prices and therefore farm income or about the best they have been since the the early fifties. And this departure of the US government from the grain business is naturally cause some adjustment problems for many years private interest and notable example is the baking industry here in this country as well as certain foreign countries have relied upon the US government for warehousing services. It's been an unnatural Arrangement, but as has persisted for a long. Of time and naturally these private interests as well as he's foreign countries have gotten adjusted to it. They've come to depend upon the US government. but the years of brimful CCC Benz certainly caused the warehousing facilities in the non CCC area to after 5. What's going to happen? We've had a rather bruising transition. But I believe the worst is over. I'm confident that private interests including Farmers as well. As foreign countries will expand their warehouse facilities. That is they'll do their own stockpiling. Once they are convinced that the u.s. Government will stay out of the warehouse business the private sector while I will respond as it already is beginning to respond and other ways to die predict. For example, a swift expansion of forward Contracting and the development of Futures contracts extending Beyond one year, perhaps as long as two or even beyond that. And to illustrate the interest in this possibility. The Soviet minister of foreign trade. Mr. Patel at UF not too long ago told me that the Soviet interested Soviet Union is interested in a multi-year supply and price Contracting for soybeans as well as other grains. Now our futures Market is not adjusted to multi-year contracts, but they have a capacity. We have the know-how and I'm sure a response will occur. Know if instead of staying out of the warehousing business the US government gets back in. And gets back into the business of buying and storing grain with the objective of price and Supply management. The favorable developments that I have mention of course are not apt to happen. And if they do certainly not on the scale that would otherwise occur heavy government Holdings inevitably controlled by political factors not economics what in that piece again hangover the market to the disadvantage. I believe of farmers consumers and taxpayers anytime the government owns large stocks of grains. It controls agricultural prices to a substantial degree and that concerns Farmers that concerns Farmers because they know that no matter what the politicians promise. When there are two hundred million consumers shouting about high food prices, they make a lot more noise than 3 million Farmers a good example is the export embargo that was placed on soybeans and not too long ago. And now there is a freeze on beef prices and we all saw the disastrous effects that had on the livestock industry. The only effective way at least the most effective way to encourage Farmers to full production to meet the world food requirements is to remove the apprehension that they naturally feel whatever the government has the ability adversely to affect market prices. Frankly, I have grave misgivings about the wisdom or lack thereof of the federal government ever engaging substantially and Supply management stockpiling and I distinguish Supply management stockpiling from the establishment of a famine relief Grand Reserve in any case our primary purpose in this era at this stage should be policies that will give Farmers maximum incentive for production and confidence to move ahead. Now secondly, I always that we stopped calling for export-import controls foreign markets are vital to American Agriculture and certainly to the broad interests of the American people to keep these foreign markets to expand them to enable us to have the wherewithal in foreign markets with which to buy petroleum products and other things we need we must read contracts with foreign interest with the same consideration as we treat contract here at home. We did not do that in the case of soybean meal to our near disaster and it caused Japan and other interest to start looking for more dependable sources of supply. And third let's drop the eat less meat theme. I hope Senator Humphrey and Lester Brown won't be offended by what I say. But conjecture about the desirability of eating less hamburger and other meat has the same adverse effect on producer confidence and market prices as price freezes and talk of price rollbacks. It's bound to damage confidence other producer. Let me be more specific. If the American people are persuaded to eat less meat the present financial difficulties of beef and pork producers will certainly be multiplied Senator Humphrey and I both recently voted for legislation to guarantee credit for livestock producers and obviously so they can stay in business and keep producing meat and I find a little bit difficult to reconcile that vote with a suggestion that each American eat one less hamburger each week if meat consumption goes down inevitably so I have stock prices this internal Forest down the price of cheese poultry eggs and soy beans as well as feed grains. And eat less meat program that is successful will hit hard the agricultural interests of every single state represented here today. How much let me illustrate with a few statistics. Eating less meat would adversely affect 78% of all Farmers seats in Minnesota 85% of all farm receipts and 71% of all pharmacies in Illinois. 82% of all far more seats in the state of Missouri 8200 South Dakota and 74% in Nebraska. That's true that the consumer and giving up one hamburger. We really wouldn't be making much of the sacrifice. In fact in the sense. He might be a little bit better off without the extra calories. But the real loser is a Rancher the feeder the feed grain producer of the feed mill operator and anybody else whose livelihood depends upon the prosperity of those elements in our economy. Yep, instead of giving up a hamburger. The citizen will donate a dollar of dollar a week or more to care to Catholic relief to crop or to a similar charitable program. You will make a significant and immediate contribution to starving people without causing a long chain of undesirable side-effects the best way to ensure an adequate supply of food, and the years ahead is to rest our confidence on the strength of Our Own Private Marketing System. And Leonard function Lauder continue to provide the kind of insanity is that will expand the productive limits of American Agriculture. And if we want a promising view of how far these productive limits of American agriculture can be expanded. I urge you to read a statement made to the house committee on agriculture just this past week by Don paregoric the chief Economist of the US Department of Agriculture. Tremendous prospects for expansion of our productive capacity. So we have it here and other countries have the capacity to expand food production to and that's why at the same time while we deal with the forces of the competitive private Market here to meet her own needs. I think it's very vital that we help these developing countries begin to build the test. Same type sound foundation for food supply and their own countries are next panelist is Lester Brown Lester are brown is a senior fellow in the overseas development console. He is an agricultural Economist and highly-regarded. He was administrator of the international Agricultural Development service for the United States Department of Agriculture. He was selected one of the ten outstanding young man of America by the US Jaycees in 1965. Lester Brown has been outstanding in the areas of increased food production is working the area food prices in India was widely recognized. He is the author he is I should say an author and some of his works are in the human interest World Without Borders seeds of change in Mays Landing food. In 10 minutes one cannot present an analysis of the food problem one can only touch on a few points. I would like to suggest as one who's just finished writing a book an overview of the world food situation. that the complexity of the world food problem may now exceed our analytical capability. Let me repeat that the complexity of the world food problem may not exceed our analytical capability. In order to understand what is happening? In the world food economy one today must be at once and Economist ecologist agronomist meteorologist and political scientist. these at a minimum and very few of us. Either in government or in universities are trained to to analyze problems in a multidisciplinary fashion. Are record those of us who spend our time trying to analyze and understand what's happening in the world food economy. I record has not been very good in the last few years. Let me cite just a few of the areas where we have fallen short in our analysis. The world fish catch which is roughly equivalent to World beef output in terms of protein Supply had increased each year for 20 years from 1950 to 1970 and the catch was projected to continue growing for the indefinite future and then suddenly it turned down an 1971 down again 72 and down further and 73 a 20-year Trend reversed itself. And there were very very few people who anticipated that reversal. Second pint veganomicon search service of the Department of Agriculture now headed by Quentin West and we which I was earlier Associated early last year predicted a rise in food prices in the United States of 3% It turned out to be closer than 20% and this is an organization with despite this some of the finest agricultural Economist in the world as I recall Quentin 575 and total at least I used to be that many maybe maybe no longer. This is not a marginal miss a difference between 3 and 20% is not marginal. That's a very substantial mess. authoritarian the political analyst did not anticipate the change in Soviet policy in 1972, which caused them to decide that rather than to ask consumers to tighten belts after a short phone the week rot. They decided to import And to offset the shortfall in that way, we knew that the Soviet political establishment was becoming more responsive to Consumer needs, but we completely missed that major change in policy and the impact it's had on the world food economy. In 1970 not one Agricultural and less than a hundred perhaps not one in a thousand would have anticipated that by 1974. We would have had all of our 50 million Acres the Bible, playing back in production not only back in production, but with it all in Productions still hanging on by our fingertips and still apparently unable to rebuild the depleted world food reserves eyesight. These is a few I could go on until lunchtime siding the important areas where agricultural analyst where we as a group have failed to anticipate major Global chefs in the world food economy. There are many ways of viewing the food economy. I mentioned at least five disciplines that bear on how we view the problem. We could do it as Economist in the very simplest terms the traditional response of those of us in the economic profession to the problem of potential food scarcity has been don't worry about food scarcity of food becomes scarce prices will rise and that will induce additional production. Quite so what what we did not anticipate was the effect it would have on the demand side and again, not one agriculturalists in a hundred in 1970 would have believed that world wheat prices could have tripled in the. Of 18 months or the world soybean prices could have tripled in a. Of 18 months, but it's happened. We did not look at the demand side and the impact of these increases on consumption pattern, but for those who are whose incomes are a hundred $200 a year that was in the fourth world. Already spending 80% of their income on food as the price of wheat soy beans rice is doubled or tripled. I simply have not been able to adjust and what we are now beginning to see you and Country after country in Central America in sub-Saharan Africa in the Indian subcontinent is rising death rates Rising death rates reversing a 20-year decline of declining death rates reduced infant mortality. Now beginning to turn up nutrition Institute in Central America reporting a a dramatic increase in the incidence of severe protein malnutrition particularly among young children. We did not anticipate that another way of looking at the world food problem is to look at it in terms of physical resources. Basic resources used to expand food production are land water energy fertilizer. None of these can be described as being abundant today. Most of the good land in the world is now under the plow. Most of the easy irrigation projects have been completed those it will be undertaken in the future will be more costly much more difficult to undertake much more complex in engineering terms. energy We do not yet know what the impact of a tripling of the world price of energy will have on future food production prospects and Trends. We do know it will not be positive. We know that an agricultural system such as our own. Is heavily dependent on energy. Are enormous rates of productivity which has been referred to earlier and which we can be justly proud which are unique in global terms depend on the very intense abusive energy. We think of the energy used in agriculture in terms of the fuel that goes into the tractors, but recent analyses of the energy used in agriculture in the Midwest and corn belt diagram culture shows that the principal source of energy now used in food production in the midwest is not the fuel that operates the equipment that does the filing of planning to cultivating the harvesting but it's in the form of nitrogen fertilizer. The energy equivalent of nitrogen fertilizer is now greater than all the energy used in the farm equipment. Beyond this if we look at the total us food system beginning with the inputs coming into the farm and following all the way through to the dining room table, we discovered that only one-fourth of all the energy used in that system is used up to the farm gate 3/4 of the energy is used in transporting processing Distributing the food from the farm gate to the dining room table the grossest source of inefficiency in that system is the use of a 2-ton vehicle in the form of a family car to transport not more than 30 lb of food from a supermarket to home at least once a week. Sometimes making several trips per week in engineering terms. That is a gross inefficiency. A recent analysis in Science magazine points out that if the world were one to move to the American type diet by the end of the century and to to move to the energy-intensive form of Highly productive agriculture that we have in North America that Known World reserves of petroleum would be exhausted in 29 years. That's just agriculture. That's not everything between the farm gate and the dining room table. Now the world's not going to move to the American type diet. We know that and we're not going to interrupt not going to move to the same type of Agriculture we have but this does dramatize the extent to which future food production prospects and hopes for improving. Are dependent on energy supplies. What are the things that disturbs me most about the energy crisis and it's perfectly its relationship to agriculture is our failure to understand what is happening in the world energy, me and how it is going to affect us. There's no question. But that there is a leadership vacuum in this area. Now, we because of our deficiencies in the use of petroleum are in the process of mortgaging our country to the oil exporting countries in the Middle East. 2 months ago, I spend a weekend with a group of un people and various other Specialists concerned with food and energy and resource scarcity in a retreat outside New York City. One of the participants in that conference was Doctor cons about Khe any who is the Secretary General of OPEC the organization of petroleum exporting countries and by nationality a medical doctor by training and during the course of that conference he again and again made the point that we need to think about energy conservation after hearing and make this comment for a few times. I asked him. What do you think would be a desirable energy policy for the United States? Should we continue on the trend we've been on since the end of World War II consuming more and more energy doubling the use every ten or a dozen years or whatever it is or do you think we should try to level off and stabilize our use of energy through conservation? He said I don't think I would recommend either of those policies for the United States. He said I think you should reduce absolutely in absolute terms the amount of energy you're using. He said you have gross inefficiencies now woven into your entire economic system in transportation and housing in manufacturing where you use far more energy than is needed and in my mind he said in a very wasteful way so I think that should be corrected. We are beginning to see the consequences of the enormous pile up of capital in the Middle Eastern countries, which cannot spend that Capital internally. And so they are beginning to invest abroad within a decade the Middle East countries will be able to invest abroad 10 times as much Capital as the United States now has invested overseas. We're beginning to see it beginning. We're beginning to see it take for men to see what it's going to look like. You're wrong last week purchased 1/4 interest in in control of group Industries in Germany group, you're recognized as the major steel heavy equipment the arms producer in Germany throughout most of the century now 1/4 controlled by the Arabians and with a ranian sitting on the board of directors. Company after company may go this way unless we begin to recognize that energy conservation across the board is now in our national interest. What do we do about the food problem? As a result of the analysis in the book referred to by secretary Humphrey, which will be off the Preston September by bread alone. I am reasonably convinced that the solution to the food Problem by that. I mean an adequate minimum supply of food to people everywhere. Is no longer something that farmers can determine that is to say I think to the extent that is that a workable solution that Humane solution to the food population problem exists. If not now exist on the population side of the equation unless we can put the brakes on population growth in a way that most of us in the world have not thought of heretofore. I don't think there is any acceptable solution to the food population problem as now projected world population is to increase to 10 to 16 billion sometime during the latter part of the next century. We're now approaching for a billion. I don't think we can realistically support that many people. It's not that the physical potential doesn't exist. It's the stresses the illogical stresses the resource scarcity. The stress is on the international monetary and political system that we must concern ourselves with. We're not talking about a problem that's going to unfold several years from now or around the end of the century were talking about a problem that now exists and is very likely going to become much worse before it becomes better. One of the inputs required in agriculture's fertilizer fertilizer is in short supply. This year the principal exporting countries the United States those countries in Western Europe and Japan who export fertilizer who have been in one way or another restricting exports. This is had a profound effect on agriculture in Asia. Asia is experiencing a major and massive shortage of fertilizer almost every major country is affected based on what we now know. about the availability of fertilizer in Asia for the 1974 crop we can say with some confidence that the next Harvest will be less than the last and this is independent of whether We can say that the food deficit in Asia in 1975 will be the largest in the history of Asia in the history of any region in the world. We can say that with a disturbing degree of confidence even now before the Returns on the monsoon are in. Coming at a time. When reserves are at a modern low. This will present some very difficult political and moral questions. Given the fact that the principal food Reserve in the world today is no longer stocks or surpluses of grain but exist in the form of expanded livestock herds in this country and Europe in the Soviet Union. The only important source of flexibility we have is an adjusting on that front. What we may discover. By the end of this year and the early months of 1975 is that political leaders in the more affluent countries will have to decide whether in Effect 2 cast Asia address with its vast food deficit. Or whether political leaders will go to the people. as in this country and ask for the Equivalent of turning thermostats down six degrees on the food front. Skip a meal a week one meatless day a week. Or what have you? I think we're going to be faced with a very difficult political and moral question because we do not have the Reserves indeed. We do not have a reserve policy in the United States one of the issues that will enlarge. As we approached the food conference in Rome will be whether or not the International Community is capable of cooperating and creating of fashioning both a global food Reserve policy and building stocks. Not only an exporting countries, but an importing countries as well for they must share this responsibilities this responsibility. It is not only a matter of food supply. So that's the way we tend to view it in the Department of Agriculture. It is much more than that. It's a matter of economic stability. It's a matter of political stability. We've moved into as a result of the trip length of world food and energy prices a. Of great instability a. Of inflation two digit inflation virtually uncontrollable. Earlier this year. I made the point that probably 10 to 15 governments around the world will change hands in 1974 as a result of these economic instabilities that would affect political situation. As of midnight teen 74 that is now clearly a very conservative estimate. I would point out to you that every major government in Western Europe has changed hands since January 1st. France Italy Britain Germany not to mention several smaller ones Belgium Netherlands Portugal Etc. If there was any government that I thought would have been immune to these new forces, it would have been the government of Canada Canada and exporter of both energy and the food and yet we saw the Trudeau government bite the dust a few months ago on a vote of no confidence. We must do the food problem not an RO terms, but in Broad Global terms in terms of efforts to create a stable World economy a workable international monetary. Cuz if that system collapses, we've had it we've had it we went through that once before I can barely remember the last years of the depression, but we're in a very precarious situation in the world economy today Norman Borlaug has been traveling extensively throughout the world looking at the impact of the monetary situation the availability of energy and fertilizer on food production. He is deeply disturbed by the impact on other countries of the lack of leadership anywhere in the world traditionally, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in time of difficulty, but it was World War reconstruction by the food crisis in India in the in the mid-60s. The world is not getting that leadership today if we can't lead who will Norman e Borlaug a man whose name is well known around the world for his research at the international Maize and wheat Improvement Center since 1964. Or his many accomplishments and plant breeding doctor Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. He has served as a consultant to Latin American African and Asian governments and has been awarded more than 20 academic and scientific Awards. Doctor Borlaug is recognized as we know internationally as the foremost authority on the subject of food supply for the world. I think I should first. Although it should be apparent to clarify the point of view from which I speak. I've lived outside of the United States for 30 years working on these food production problems and almost was almost without exception in food deficit Nations struggling with the problem of trying to do something about increasing their productivity. In trying to train young scientists so that they themselves can take over and soon assume more responsibility for increasing the food production capacities of these nations. It's been implied but it hasn't been stated. So I would just like to reflect a minute on the great concern that has been expressed here in the USA. By the non Roar non-farm sectors in the past two years as food prices have soared. I would hurry to point out also that it is not only here but the same concern is dr. Brown has just pointed out as affected other nations of the world the Nations that are large food importers even more Gravely. If we look back to the end of World War II when these so-called stocks or surpluses were held by the grain exporting Nations. They in effect where buffers on world food prices from the standpoint of the consumer. They were also a dampening effect from the standpoint of doing Injustice has I'm sure unfair to say to the farmers, especially the small farmers in the grain exporting Nations. This all West adjusted for Suman play gradually over many years of time so that the production capacity in the exporting Nations could be brought into better harmony with the abilities of the importing Nations to absorb this production. It was thought through various devices and they were different in different countries around being somewhat different than the Canadian in the Australian and I should say in those early years Australia. Argentina was also important exporter but became less so because of internal political difficulties economic policies that didn't stimulate production. Yep. This was all sort of. Missed by the vast urban populations the non-royal sectors. They thought it took very little to produce food everyone knew it came out of the supermarkets and still very little attention was really given to agriculture. It didn't receive its do emphasis and I assure you that Governors that this was beyond your immediate controls or beyond the control of the federal government was a reality of life that someone said a few minutes ago 3% of the people or 4% I believe it was your Congressman then they produce the food those that small sector is forgotten. No, amazingly you would think it would be different in the developing nations because there you will find 50 60 70 or 80% of the people living on the land producing the food, but they're also the policy to stimulate Agriculture and consequently to increase their production has almost without exception been given very secondary importance and it's been a constant fight even after one has to develop certain technology that has been tested a long-distance in this particular case where I've been involved in reproduction developed in Mexico tested and found out to be applicable and Halfway Around the World in certain countries many countries, but let me use the case of India to illustrate. that the when you see light under the door, when you see that you can make us conspicuous break through the greatest difficulty of all used to convince planners political leaders and all too often scientist himself that this breakthrough is at hand to bring about the right economic policies that will permit the implementation of this new technology. It has been frustrating all too often and yelled at certain times. There has been conspicuous and really large change. I have seen for example, India's wheat production in the short. Of time from 68 to 19. 73 gold from about 420 million bushels to a billion bushels making it during that short period until it fell into this fertilizer energy crisis the third largest producer of wheat in the world probably a faster change of then has ever taken place anywhere else in the world in any given crop at least a crop of that magnitude of size. There has been promising changes in some of these other countries, but now as we look at what has happened just in the last 2 years there are many depressing discouraging things that enter into the picture. I should say at this point that norder to appreciate the magnitude of the problem that we're dealing with. I would like to paint it in this way. We thought that we had adjusted our production to what international markets could consume. By 1971. It was also thought that the grain exporting countries who had been the Brokers warehouses and the bankers unjustly for carrying the world food Reserves at their own expense expensive there taxpayers. I had brought this into balance that they thought was adequate with an adequate Reserve to meet any emergency by the end of 7th 1971. That was an all-time Harvest of cereal grains it amounted to a billion 100 million metric tons in USA have been in the metric system so long now I have difficulties changing back to millions or billions push-ups, but I think if I express it this way. 1971 Harvest to a highway build up grain. That goes around the Earth at the equator. This highway will be 55 feet wide and it will have a roadbed that will be six feet deep. That's how much grain was produced in 1971. But since we are 76 million more people each year and this is why one has to be very cautious when we talked about looking forward into the future very far. Did Growing needs 76 million more people. Which means about 2% world population growth, but the consumption is going up as dr. Brown is indicated closer to two and a half percent consumption of cereal grains. That means 27 million tons of grain every year a billion bushels more grain every year. So we have to rebuild this highway of green every year or the highway around the equator and then start building and construct on the second Highway at the rate of 625 miles a year. A highway at that same Dimension just to keep per capita cereal grain production at the same level. This doesn't take into consideration many of the other items that we have to have soybeans and beans and legumes have all kinds of vegetables and fruits and fibres. So it's a it's a tremendous magnitude challenge. I think dr. Brown mentioned that our food habits Senator Humphrey also mentioned this we are beefeaters in the US as well as much of the western world. And this means that you convert specially animal cells go through the feedlots eight or nine pounds of grain to each pound of prime beef that's produced and the conversion is also High even in other animals such as pork and horse wine and not the same magnet to metric ton of grain. Here with our food habits will feed about the we consume nearly a ton per person. He ran in Canada mostly in the form of animal products meat cheese eggs. So on that same ton of grain in India with their food habits will feed 5 people for a year. So you see what habits are has a lot to do with the the demands for green. We should point out that food habits are creaky sorts of things in the Rice growing areas of the world. If you come from Japan or areas that have grown that kind of rice you want the sticky cooking rice has and you don't want the dry cooking Indian Rice's if you come from South Asia, it's just the opposite and I dare say and you know, one of the most unpleasant experiences that we had in introduction of Mexican weeks into Indian. The early stages was a little thing called color of green. They wanted white the ordinary consumer didn't care didn't wasn't concerned about this. But some people that manipulated the market for deeply concerned and if they could get an extra 20% out of deep depressing prices on grain of red color. This was too awesome done and governments weren't realistic and tough enough to see that these abuses were brought under control. Of course, the irony of that was the during the same. When we were trying to get this moving or shortly thereafter before The US exported and Canada into India about 400 million tons of ore bushels of red grain what was being complained about the market? So you see there's some very funny things that have to do with with food habits that are built into the different systems in different parts of the world now, I would like to say that our dilemma at the moment is that there are no grain reserves of any substance anywhere in the world. We're short of fertilizer as it's already been pointed out. if this Monsoon fails in South Asia in the rice crop God help us all. because without that Reserve even did the grain exist to move in let us a 10 million metric tons through the ports in the railroad systems. Or perhaps fifteen into Bangladeshi Indian Pakistan War it available is a practically an impossibility on a crash program bases their transport problem is well, I have traveled the last 5 months in 20 different countries. Not only travel worked and struggled and prodded and pushed all of the other unpleasantries that go with this kind of a job in trying to encourage production and take the case of India. We think that we had unpleasantries here in the energy crisis. I would like to find out what happened to one country which typifies or the situation in perhaps 25 different countries. All of which are petroleum importers have none of their own fertilizer importers and food importers. On those three items for importations in 1971 India spent about $570. If it were to import those same quantities today, it would be about a billion 250 million, but this is an impossibility because there's no fertilizer and if it were available. Well, it's just not there. But since they've had to cut back on on their crude oil imports, which is the raw material also for their nitrogenous fertilizer. They get in a bind on that front so that by cutting back on fertilizer Imports, they will have to increase the Imports probably 8 by 5 to 10 million tons of grain which is ruinous with the price prices the way they are now on the international market in with their lack of foreign exchange. This would cost them somewhere between close to 3 billion and if they cut out all fertilizer Imports and cut back more on the crude oil importations, it will go up towards 4 billion dollars. Their economy is in Ruins and this is true of more than one as I say it probably 10 or 15 the neighbors to the South throughout Central America or in the same fixing there many others in Asia and Africa, so when we complain about what happened to us with the energy crisis, I have a long close look at what's happened to the cleavage of the third world nations in 2002 have petroleum for export in those who don't it's two different worlds on that front to at the present time now in closing I would just like to say that I will have to disagree looking at this as a world citizen with some of the seeming. Different points of view about the depressing effect of prices of reserves wherever they may be in the world on the price of farmers product. In other words grain prices. We have to make one decision. And I would urge you all not to urge our own government to again assume the full responsibility together with that of Canada and Australia financing this whole story just was done in the past. but the industrial Nations I have a stake in this also, they're suffering from the increases in food prices. Whether it's Germany or Japan and they too will have to take a part of this responsibility. However, this be organized there has to be a reserve. We are in the ridiculous position now with no reserves shortage of fertilizer and everywhere I go I see less than the rosy picture that has been painted of the world cereal grain production at the present time in DS production on we will be down certainly 200 million bushels their rice, maybe worse because there's fertilizer shortage is growing worse. The unconfirmed reports in there and also is one of our great difficulties. On statistics from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are unreliable. They arrived late. They may be biased in favor of the forthcoming decisions economic decisions. And this is a poor way to plan for the food of 3.8 billion people in this world. If we do not have information from the centrally controlled government of the USSR People's Republic of China and also from some of the Eastern European countries and how which represent more than a third of the world's population. How can we do a very good job at trying to plan what production needs are there has to be better communication. There has to be some arrangements made for sustaining a reasonable reserve and isolating it from the market. I'm not an economist, but there must be some way of doing this so that you don't depress the price of grain and that the United States again, that's not Carry, a disproportionate responsibility for carrying this economic burden know I am deeply concerned just as Doctor brownies about the social political instability in these countries. You cannot apply the new technology to expand food production if there's political and social chaos in a country that goes from bad to worse and I think we will see more of this in the next two or three years unless we can rebuild some semblance of reserved to protect against the drought such as we are experiencing some areas here in the US at the present time. I have seen these I'm confirmed reports that again. The wheat crop is not good in USSR. Try to get accurate information. You can there was reported a window telling the Eastern European countries on winter wheat again, try to get accurate information. It isn't there and then remember all of always what dr. Brown mentioned about how we grow numbers. And how we must provide for the these people since you began your conference yesterday morning, there are now 216000 additional people that have to be provided for not only in food, but for all of the other basic necessities of life, and I'm since I've been up here talkin there about eighteen hundred more so I better sit down before it gets worse.