OCR Text |
Show Conservation Soil Program Discussed By Director William Peterson The most common complaint which comes to the Extension Service Serv-ice direct from farmers is that their farms do not yield as they did formerly. The crops are less and the land is harder to irrigate. This, if the statement is correct, means that fertility is growing less and the rate of water absorption is growing less and the land is suffering under erosion. Every farmer would like to so adjust his farming methods to rehabilitate his farm lands and his farm income. It is a common statement state-ment that he has obligations and cannot afford it. We now have with us the soil conservation program. What does this propose? The program has listed what is generally accepted as soil depleting crops and soil building crops, with a provision of payment toy changing from soil depleting to soil building crops. There is no contract; con-tract; there is no coercion; there is merely an opportunity. If one measures mea-sures this opportunity merely in dollars dol-lars and cents the farmer may complain com-plain that its privileges are not sufficiently suf-ficiently inviting, but if he measures it from the standpoint of building for the future and an investment to make farming in America more secure se-cure and a method of continuing soil maintenance practices, then the program pro-gram should have an appeal to every thinking farmer. The program suggests sug-gests methods that are included in an acceptable farm management practice. Payment number one is for a transfer from the soil depleting to a soil building crop. Payment number two is consideration for soil preparation, prepara-tion, purchase of seed and special work in the planting of certain crops. Payment number three, or special payment, refers only to sugar beets, cotton, tobacco, peanuts, etc. To earn these payments, however, ttiere are certain stipulations that 15 per cent of the equivalent of acres in depleting crops must be in soil building and soil conserving crops, and that in the special payment that 50 per cent of the specialty crops that are paid for must be in soil building or soil conserving crops. The man who does nothng on his farm to improve it will receive no pay. The man who actually makes strides toward improving his farm is helped in the benefit payments. It is a payment to assist in what the good farmer already recognizes should be done. There is a certain spirituality in this attempted program. The farmer farm-er at first signed a contract to do certain things which the Government Govern-ment wanted done. This was largely large-ly without regard to the effect on the land. The Supreme Court put an end to that contract. This program pro-gram is a spiritual appeal to make the farm lands of America more secure se-cure for America, and at the same time the farmer benefits his holdings hold-ings in proportion to his adoption of the program. The 400 million dollars given to the farmers of America to change their farming as a crop control measure mea-sure does not mean very much, but 400 million dollars put into the rehabilitation re-habilitation of the farm lands through soli building practices is money well spent, and not only will the farmers benefit but ttie generations genera-tions after him will benefit in this method. |