Letters To The Editor Dear editor: I was surprised that vour editorial on mandatory soil conservation did not include any suggestion of positive incentives to promote soil conservation. Farmers are not willingly washing away their own most valuable resource, they simply lack the expertise in land management and the financial capability and incentive to correct the problem. The suggestion of a W* i ft ;|J» _ , ****** * (/40M $ V HARVESTA * iJ. » »»>»v U M • it «*•*•.* *« *** U »,.•*»****• MW mm GREG ESHELMAN Mohnton, PA I really couldn't be more satisfied First of all I like the efficiency at harvest With just two of us working the entire harvest was non stop Then the 5C per bushel curing cost even included power for installation and our night light My buyer was quite impressed with my corn Test weight was from 57 to 58 lbs That means I got ah extra S3OO per 25 ton truck load Even the Covers commented on the good quality “clean up or else” measure enforced by more regulatory legislation is the wrong approach to the problem. In essence, this approach dumps the tremendous responsibility of preserving the future food production potential on today’s already struggling farmer. Instead, we need a stronger system of support, both in technology and financial backing to en courage soil conservation. CHIUCUUHO C£Nr«AtCCNTftOi the U.S. Soil Conservation Service needs to spend more time convincing farmers of the benefits of soil con servation programs. More favorable loans for con servation projects should be made available. Under present SCS guidelines, the farmer still bears too much of the cost of a project that will benefit the society much more than the individual farmer. I don’t know of any far mers who would not par ticipate in a soil con servation program if they were convinced that it would be profitable to do so. In the long run, the society would be tiie real profiler. I believe this positive type promotion is a much more practical approach to the problem of soil loss. essmqs... I'm an Ag Engineering student at Penn State and we do a lot of work with drying systems Out of curiosity I ran the Harvestall design through our computers and found that for the most important aspect of drying air flow the Harvestall bin is the optimum design Actually the Harvestall is the most profit able part of my operation With better marketing control I make an extra dollar per bushel For the farmer who needs storage or drying the Harvestall Chillcuring system is the best investment I can think of Tony Novak Delaware Valley College Advanced Ag Systems RD2, Box 174 Elverson, PA 19520 215-286-9118 Ken Sauder Milford Mast 717-656-6519 215-286-9118 FmHA loans for plants considered WASHINGTON - Agriculture Secretary Bob Bergland is considering a proposal to permit the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farmers Home Ad ministration (FmHA) to make low-interest loans to build small hydroelectric generating facilities. To be made through FmHA’s community facilities loan program, the loans would go to com munities with populations not larger than 10,000. Purpose of the proposed change would be to enable small rural communities, many of whom operate their own generating facilities, to stabilize their electricity costs and reduce depen dency upon fossil fuels. The proposal specifies that loans could be made to restore deactivated dams and hydroelectric generators; enlarge or improve existing plants, or construct new facilities. The action is intended to support the President’s small community and rural development policy by making FmHA more responsive to rural energy needs. Within USDA, the Rural Electrification Ad ministration (REA) has primary responsibility for rural electrification. However, REA authorities restrict its loans to places under 1,500 population. rvestall hillcurin works It is the most rentable art of my operatic )4a Lancaster Fanning, Saturday, December 20,1980-Al3 hydroelectric USDA officials have determined that a need for financing exists in places of up to 10,000. FmHA authorities extend to that size community. The proposal was based in part on public input at meetings, from telephone inquiries and requests for loans from potential ap plicants, according to a notice in July 24 Federal Register. FmHA would process loan applications in the same manner as for any other community facility loan, including the determination that other credit is not available at reasonable rates and terms. FmHA also could finance connecting lines to the nearest practical point of an i SOMETHING ABOUTT.. Lancaster Farming has over 37,000 subscribers The Haivestall Chillcuring System It’s simple When gram comes out of the field it’s a living seed So instead of destroying the seed with high heat, moisture is removed with natural air ventilation The gram keeps all its feed value, there is less shrinkage than with heat drying because only moisture is removed, not dry matter You’ll never see white dust mChillcured corn You actually save naif of what you’re used to losing 11 heat shrink There s no gas or oil to buy Natural air carries away heat and moisture as the corn releases it Harvestall Chillcuring is a back-to-basics system that just simply makes good sense Find out more about existing distribution system. Potential loan applicants would be public bodies, such as municipalities, counties, districts, authorities, or other subdivisions of a state. Nonprofit organizations such as associations and cooperatives also will be eligible if they have legal authority to operate, maintain and finance such facilities. Comments on the proposal 1 are invited; closing date for these is Sept. 22. Comments should be submitted in duplicate to the Office of the Chief of Directives Management Branch, FmHA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 6346, South Agriculture Building, Washington, D.C. 20250.