A3B-Lancaster Farming, Saturday, Fabruary 4, 1995
Stake System Provides Better Tomatoes, Income For Growers
(Continued from Pago A 32)
higher percentage of red fruit
Carousel Planter
Grower Experiences
Dwight Hess, a grower for Fur
man Foods in Marietta, moderated
a panel that discussed tomato
grower experiences using carousel
planters.
All agreed there was a definite
and significant advantage to using
Growers Achieve Honors At Vegetable Conference
ANDY ANDREWS
Lancaster Fanning Staff
HERSHEY (Dauphin Co.)
Awards were presented to several
state vegetable growers during
banquets held Tuesday at the 1995
Pennsylvania Vegetable Confer
ence and Trade Show.
At the Tomato Awards Lunc
heon at noon, awards were pre
sented to the 1994 tomato growing
champions by the Champion
Tomato Growers’ Club. Top
growers in different classes
received an engraved plaque for
high tomato production and
record-keeping practices during
the “Tomato Day” session of the
vegetable conference.
The following winners were
recognized at the luncheon:
• Class 1 Machine Harvest (60
or more acres): Cliff Charles.
Charles, Lancaster, won the award
for the highest tomato yield in this
class. He harvested 2,734 tons of
usable fruit for Furman Foods on
100 acres for a 27.3 tons per acre
average yield. Varieties grown
included Early Pear, Peto 696,
Ohio 8245, and Heinz 9478. The
288 and 338 plug transplants,
grown in his own greenhouses,
were planted with a Lanner cup
planter at a population of 13,000
plants per acre. The double rows
are planted on 66-inch centers with
a 15-inch spacing in the row and 19
inches between rows. The trans
plants went into the fields from
April 25-May 25. Tomatoes are
rotated in a three-year program
with com or small grains in
double-crop soybeans. Some
fields had a small application of
manure and generally all fields had
fertilizer applied in a 1-2-3 ration
of N-P-K in the spring. If addition
al nitrogen was required, calcium
nitrate was applied at 20 pounds/
acre. Tomato yields varied greatly
because of excessive moisture.
• Class 2 Machine Harvest
(40-59 acres): Dale Frank. Frank,
Elizabethtown, harvested 1,170
tons of usable fruit for Furman
Foods on 50 acres for a 23.4 tons
per acre average yield. Peto 696,
Heinz 9478. and Laßossa woe
grown from tray transplants at a
population of 10,000 plants per
acre and transplanted on May 2-13
with a three-row rotary planter.
Tomatoes were not grown on beds,
and the single rows were spaced
five feet from center and plants
were 10 inches in the row. Toma
toes are rotated in a three-year
program with com or small grains
in double-crop soybeans. The rota
tion consits of tomatoes-com-com
or tomatoes-double crop barley/
soybeans-com. Lime was applied.
Tomatoes arc sidedressed with liq
uid nitrogen at 30 pounds per acre.
A high phosphorous starter fertil
izer (10-54-4) was applied at IS
pounds per acre at planting.
* Class 3 Machine Harvest
(25-39 acres): Clyde Kreider and
Rohrer. Kreider, Lancaster,
Vegetable Conference Research Examines Stake System, Transplants, Planters
either six-cup or eight-cup trans
plants over the finger method.
Tomato growers at the panel
included Ken Martin, farm mana
ger, Furman Foods, Northumber
land; Dale Frank, Elizabethtown;
Dan Mower, Marietta; and Cliff
Charles. Lancaster.
Hess said that he uses a 288-cell
tray, with tomato plants sown in
greenhouses about 4-6 weeks prior
harvested 737 tons of usable fruit
for Furman Foods on 26 acres for a
28.3 tons per acre average yield.
Transplants of Peto 696 were
planted May 12-19. The tomatoes
were grown in single grows at a
population of 11,000 plants per
acre with a five-foot spacing
between rows and 9.S inches in the
row. A three-year crop rotation is
followed which includes
soybeans-com-tomatoes. Lime
was applied. Also, 8,000 gallons
per acre of cow manure was used
to fertilize the tomatocrop in 1994.
• Class 4 Machine Harvest
(15-24 acres): Nissley Brothers.
Mount Joy. Darwin and Bernard
Nissley harvested SSS tons of
usable fruit for Furman Foods on
19 acres for a 29.1 tons per acre
(Continued from Pago A 1)
they are owed.
According to Jennifer Hershey,
director of the Consolidated Farm
Service Agency (CFSA) office in
Lebanon County (which used to be
called the. Agricultural Stabiliza
tion and Conservation Service),
the application program is relative
ly simple, and the process has not
changed since the program started
in 1990.
The dairy assessment program
is one in which an assessment has
been placed on the commercial
sale of raw milk. The USDA,
through its Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) collects the
money out of the producer’s milk
check and refunds the money to
those who have kept their milk
production and sales at previous
year levels or lower.
The amount of refunds made
sets up the rate for which further
are made, conse
quently making it more costly to
constantly expand production.
By law, all who sell milk are
required to have the deduction
taken off of their milk check.
The amount of money owed to
an individual producer can be
significant
The rate of assessment has var
ied for 1994. In January, it was
10.12 cents per hundredweight
(cwt.) of milk sold. Then in Febru
ary, the assessment jumped to
11.25 cents per cwt.
In May, the assessment almost
doubled and was 19.28 cents per
hundredweight.
All those who kept their milk
production at the previous year’s
level, or reduced production, are
entitled to a full refund of the
assessment collected.
For many family farmers, the
amount owed to them is what they
paid in, and it can range from about
$l,OOO to more than $3,000.
To apply for their money, dairy
farmers should take evidence of
their monthly milk marketings, the
amount of milk produced, and the
to field planting. The plants arc
* ‘hardened off’ outside the green
house 1-2 days prior to
transplanting.
Using a carousel planter is
advantageous because iteprovides
more uniform tow placement and,
most importantly, saves on labor
and time compared to the finger
placement method.
Circular carousel planters used
average yield. Peto 696 transplants
were grown at a population of
10,000 plants per acre and trans
planted May 20-25. The tomatoes
were not grown on beds and the
single rows were spaced five feet
from center and plants were 10
inches in the row. A four-year crop
rotation is followed, corn
soybeans-com-tomatoes. Lime
was applied. Steer manure was
applied at 10 tons per acre and
plowed down prior to final soil
preparation on eight acres. All 19
acres had 200 pounds per acre of
phosphorous and potassium prior
to planting. Both fields were
sidedressed with liquid nitrogen
between 30 and 60 pounds per acre
after planting.
• Class 1 Hand Harvest (IS or
Get Back Your Milk Assessment Money 1f...
amount of assessment paid to the
CCC, to the local CFSA office, or
call ahead if uncertain that the
proper paperwork is in hand.
The comparison of production,
for the sake of the refund, is
between production during the
immediate past year to production
during the previous year (two
years earlier from the year of filing
for a refund).
Also for- the purposes of the
refund, the “year” is the calendar
year, not records-keeping or finan
cial “years.”
The requirement for the refund
more or less bolsters the advice
that farmers should probably keep
track of theinherd’s production
if not for their own herd and busi
ness management, then to make
sure they don’t lose refund money.
The program doesn’tjustlookat
end-of-year totals, but also “...
when compared to the equivalent
months and days of the immediate
ly preceding calendar year or base
period.”
Those who have not exceeded
milk marketings over the previous
year can enjoy the full refund of
their money.
There are some built-in guide
lines in the program to help pre
vent fraud, such as attempting to
claim a refund on an existing
herd’s production, while ignoring
additional marketings that were
made by expanding under a new
name.
Under that strategy, considered
fraud, a person could expand a
dairy operation and lose less
money by sacrificing assessments
paid on die new herd, rather than
losing all.paid assessments for the
entire operation.
Under the law, the identification
of family members, and the
amount of interest a producer can
own in another milk production
operation is among the eligibility
considerations for a refund.
According to a news release that
the USDA has not had to update
for several years, “Producers are
eligible to receive refund pay-
by the panel include one eight-cup. Mower indicated that the old
two six-cup, and one four-cup. finger method allowed 8,000
The growers agreed that the plants per hour placement in the
planters allow the growers to use field. Using a six-cup unit, 11,000
less transplanting water, do'a bet- plants per hour are placed in the
ter job of sealing the soil around field. Soaking the transplants
the plant, and provide more uni- allowed more faster dropping and
form stand. But the growers had to movement of transplants from car
make sure the seedbed was loose ousel to the shoe,
and even and the transplanter tun- Editor’s note: More confer
ing was checked periodically. ence coverage next issue.
more acres): Robert Macßeth.
Macßeth, Biglerville, harvested
442.3 tons of usable fruit for Fur
man Foods on 16 acres for a 27.6
tons per acre average yield. Plug
transplants of Ohio 7681 were
planted May 10-16 at 8,500 plants
per acre. The tomatoes were grown
in single rows with a 46-inch spac
ing between rows and 16 inches in
the row. A four-year crop rotation
is followed, which includes wheat
hay-com-tomatoes. No lime was
applied. Nitrogen was broadcast
and plowed down at 84 pounds per
acre, anda sidedress application of
8-24-8 was applied at 526 pounds
per acre with minor elements after
the plants were established.
• Class 3 Hand Harvest (2-S
acres): Clyde Sensenig, Port Tre
ments of withheld amounts, if evi
dence is provided that the produc
er, and all dairies in which that pro
ducer has an interest, did not
increase milk marketings ...”
There are definitions of who is
“family,” and what constitutes a
“related person.”
A “family member” is the “...
parent, grandparent, or legal guar
dian; the spouse of a parent of
grandparent; spouse; the son,
daughter, grandson, or grand
daughter, or the spouse of any of
these persons; siblings and the
spouses of these siblings.”
A “related person” is, “The
spouse and minor child of the per
son (claiming a refund); guardian
or parent of a minor child; any cor
poration in which the person is a
stockholder, shareholder, or onwer
of equal to, or greater than, 10 per
cent interest in the corporation;
any partnership, joint venture, or
other enterprise in which the per
son has an ownership interest or
financial interest; any trust in
which the person seeking the
refund payment, or any person
listed above, is a beneficiary or has
a financial interest; any estate. An
estate shall be treated the same as
the deceased individual.”
According to the news
if an individual farmer applies fora
refund for the farm, the agency
will only request information on
the first level of relation.
On the other hand, a multi
interest dairy producer., not an
individual, that applies for a refund
ROPE IN
SOME EXTRA h
CASH!
Advertise With A I I Sjffl ,1
Lancaster Fanning v/ ' 1 |i; i
CLASSIFIED AD...
{’hone: 717-394-3047 if!
or 717-626-1164
verton. Sensenig harvested 91 tons
of usable fruit for Furman Foods
on 2.5 acres for a 36.4 tons per acre
average yield. Fruit was harvested
from August 22-SepL 12. Addi
tional information was not
available.
The Pennsylvania Vegetable
Growers Association honored two
members with lifetime member
ships at the banquet held Tuesday
evening. The awards were pre
sented by James Kohl, president of
the association. Receiving awards
were Donald Daum, University
Park and Tom Jurchak, Clarks
Summit.
Richard Pallman, Pallman
Farms, Clarks Summit, presented a
special award to James Kohl, pres
ident of the state vegetable grow
ers. at the banquet.
is to report all first-level and
second-level related people. The
second level people are deter
mined by listing all the related per
sons for the first level of related
persons.
The assessment program was a
result of the 1990 Farm Bill (Food
Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 and 1991
amendments) and the federal
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1990, as authorized under
the national Food Security Act of
198 S. This round of refunds is the
second to the last one in the
program.
The program is scheduled to
stop after 1995, which means there
will be one more refund period, in
early 1996. Whether or not the
program is reauthorized in the
1995 Farm Bill, or new legislation,
remains to be seen.
In the meantime, Jennifer Her
shey said individual producers in
Lebanon County have been mailed
a notice which outlines the types of
records necessary in order to suc
cessfully apply for a refund on
dairy assessments.
Other producers in other coun
ties should have received a similar
notice. If not, then they should
contact their local CFSA office.
Details of the program have
changed little since the program
started. The application period
continues through to a final dead
line of March IS.
For more information, contact a
local CFSA office or cooperative
extension office.