Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1936-07-09
SOIL PROGRAM
is MODIFIED
Secretary w ALA &c An
nounces Changes at Re-
cent Meeting in Chicago.
Action Will Enable Some
Farmers to Benefit Where
Otherwise They Couldn't.

O~ASA WIN 49,
Modification of the 1896 Agricul-
tural Conservation program in the
north central region to take into &C
count the abnormal conditions which
have arisen in part out OF the 1884
drouth, was announced by Secretary
of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace on
July 3, at a meeting in Chicago with
state committees and extension rep
resentatives from the corn belt states.
This modification will enable farm
ers who planted, as result of the
1884 drouth or other unusual condi-
tions, an abnormally large acreage OF
soil depicting crops in 1885 to receive
some soil conserving payment in 1886
for making a diversion to soil-con-
serving crops from their 1885 acreage
of soil depicting crops.
Prior to the revision cooperating
farmer became ineligible for soil
conserving payment and his soil
building payment was subject to de-
duction if the acreage of all soil
depicting crops, such as corn, oats,
wheat and barley grown on the farm
in 1886 exceeded the established nor
NAL base acreage for such farm. This
base represents the normal acreage of
the soil-depleting crops grown on the
farm. In establishing the normal
base the total acreage in soil-deplet-
ing crops harvested on the farm last
year was used as a starting point.
This acreage was then adjusted so
that the base finally established was
normal for the farm comparable with
other similar farms in the commun-
ity. The normal soil-depleting base
is being retained as the true base for
the farm and as the principal guide
in determining the maximum amount
of soil-conserving payment.
Drouth Causes Increased Acreage.
For two major reasons farmers
have found it difficult to divert a suf-
ficient number of acres to earn soil
conserving payments. These reasons
are as follows:
l..
crease in soil-depleting crops in many
counties since 1928, the period used
for determining the normal base, be-
cause the pastures and clover which
were killed by the 1884 drouth had
been replaced by soil-depleting crops
in 1885 in order to provide temporary
forage. The revision will encourage
farmers to return to more normal
farming practices.
2. Because of the limited time for
getting the program under way, many
farmers were not notified of their
soil-depleting bases until it was Sc
late that it was difficult for them tc
make all the necessary adjustments
in their farming operation.
Under the new m dification, farm
ers who grow a smaller acreage OF
soil-depleting crops in 1886 than in
1885 and make corresponding increase
in their acreage of soil-conserving
crops will qualify for at least a part
of the total soil-conserving payment
which they would earn if they made
the minimum diversion from the es-
tablished base. This maximum is
1870 of the normal base. They may
qualify for that proportion of the
maximum soil-conseving payment
which the number of acres diverted
from the 1885 soil-depleting acreage
for the farm represents of the total
diversion required from the 1885
acreage in order to earn the maxi
mum soil-conserving payments.
Explaining the Program.
The following example illustrates
how payments would be determined
on an individual corn belt farm under
the revised provisions:
Acreage of soil-depleting crops har-
vested in 1885, 100 acres; soil-deplet.
ing base established for the farm
100 acres; acreage planted to soil
depicting crops in 1886, LOG acres;
maximum 1886 acreage of soil-de-
plotting crops to earn maximum soil
conserving payment (15% less than
basel, IS acres; number of acres di.
verted from 1895 acreage of soil-de.
pletlng crops (12O acres minus LOT
acres, IA acres; number of acres nee.
essary to divert from 1885 acreage
of soil-depleting crops in order to re.
ceive maximum soil-conserving pay.
ment (120 acres minus IS acres), 81
acres; maximum soil-conserving pay
ment which may be earned assum.
ing a rate of SO per acre for the
farm (15% of base of Is acres times
acre-rate), $50. Total payment
earned under new provision (14/35 Of
$500 or $50.
If this modification had not beer
made, the farmer even though he hat
contributed to the detectives of the
program, would have been ineligible
for a,soil-conserving payment. In ad
flition, the six acres Of soil-depletint