*
!4—Lancaster Farming, Saturday. Mar. 2.1974
Credit Needs
(Continued From Page ■)
Then he gave four major deciaions of the administration in
Washington affecting agriculture and which he said would
immeasurably enhance the farming opportunity for young
farmers today;
...' A decision to let American agriculture make its full
contribution and go for the full production opportunity which
will mean more farming operations.
... A decision to let farmers manage their own farms. It is
already helping to increase net returns to all farmers.
... A decision to let the market work in our economy. This
is the strongest possible guarantee that fanners will get the
production resources needed, with prices that will cover
production costs and provide an attractive life style.
... A decision to continue support for the family farm
structure.
Prior to the conference, Dr. William Herr, a visiting
scholar with the Farm Credit Administration, asked the 100
young farmers to fill out a survey form to help identify the
financial situation of young farmers.
Replies were summarized and revealed this composite
picture of the young farmer in attendance:
He is 33 years old, married and has four dependents. He
has 14 years of education, has a farm background, farms 830
acres and has a general farming operation.
He has assets of $322,000 and debts amounting to $132,000.
His off-the-farm income last year was $6,100.
Seventy-two percent obtained their credit from in
stitutional lenders
By comparison, young farmers at a siimlar meeting in 1963
reported assets of $30,000 and debts of $16,000.
Asked to project their future goals and objectives, the
results showed the young fanners intended to boost their
acreage (owned, leased and farmed jointly) from 830 in 1973
to 1,270 acres in 1974.
Asked to identify major problems they encountered in
beginning their farming operations, 54 of them said - finding
land to buy; 53 said obtaining credit and 30 obtaining
machinery and equipment.
John R. Brake, Michigan State University agricultural
economist, at a general session of “Problems Young Far
mers Face in Getting and Managing Capital,” said some
credit agencies are “not doing as well as they inight at this
point.”
He said they were getting away from some of the
traditional collateral requirements.
“When a young guy wants to start on a shoestring, this
agency can’t help him because they’ve got to have more
security than he can provide. So he buys land on contract,
rents machinery, rents silos. All of this is very expensiye
financing.”
HIGH PRESSURE
WASHING
OF POULTRY HOUSES AND VEAL PENS
BARRY L. HERR
1744 Pioneer Road Lancaster Pa
Phone 717-464 2044
Formerly operated bv Maynard L Beitzel
Dear Livestock Farmer;
Dr. Cloy Knodt tells us that a
ton of good quality alfalfa
haylage containing 40%
moisture and 20% crude protein
on a dry matter basis can be an
excellent source of protein and
considerable economic value.
Such haylage contains enough
crude protein to equal that of
545 lbs. of 44% protein soybean
meal which would cost $54.50
($200.00 per ton) or $65.40
($240.00 per ton). Therefore,
alfalfa haylage can easily be,
worth $5O to $65 per ton |ust for
its crude protein value as
compared to buying soybean
meal
Sincerely yours,
Dick Enck
717-284-4973
PENN-JERSEY
HARVESTORE SYSTEMS, INC
Land
(Continued From Page I)
ments. “Strip development
is unsightly and expensive to
service," he said, “and there
should be some safeguards
in the bill to prevent this
practice.”
Winsor said that his group
supported the bill in general,
but that if changes weren't
made in the roll-back and
split-off provisions, they
would be “regretfully”
compelled to, oppose it.
General agreement with
the bill’s intent was voiced
by a number of farm
organizations at the
meeting, including the
Pennsylvania Farmers
Association and the Penn
sylvania State Grange. Both
organizations, and prac
tically everyone else who
presented oral or written
testimony, suggested some
changes in the bill,
Amos Funk, a Lancaster
County farmer and chair
man of the Pennsylvania
Association of Conservation
Districts land use com
mittee, spoke eloquently in
behalf of the bill, and
recommended its adoption
with the five-year roll-back
clause. “A five-year roll
back will do a better Job than
a ten-year roll-back because
farmers will be afraid to sign
up for ten years. A shorter
roll-back will encourage
people to participate."
Funk cited the example of
a similar act in California
which had a ten-year clause,
and said it didn’t work. “All
they got signed up in
California was class four,
five and six land. They didn’t
get their best farms under
the plan, and California is
now losing 800 acres of
farmland every day.
“There’s a three-year roll
back in New Jersey, and
they’ve succeeded in saving
lots of farmland. There are
disadvantages to a five-year
roll-back and to a split-off
provision. But I feel the
advantages far outweigh the
disadvantages.”
“We’ve been treating land
too long as if land is creating
the problems. It’s people
who create the problems,”
Funk concluded. “It’s time
to stop treating land solely as
an economic unit and start
treating it as a non
renewable resource."
In a written statement to
the committee, Penrose
Hallowell, state director of
the Farmers Home Ad
ministration, backed up
Funk's observation that the
short roll-back period was
working in New Jersey.
Leonard Strunk, an
agricultural economist from
Chester County, told the
committee that they should
stop thinking of the bill as a
way to save open space and
start thinking of it as a way
to help farmers. “Because
farmers,” Strunk said,
“really need help.”