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 «*•*•.* *«<x« * y*. **o «<*»
u_, , , r > *** 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.