a meeting on April 15, Thursday, in | I
Parmesan Cheese
r\f C^I
Tossed Green Salad
Fuel monitor
study begins
By THERESA SCOTT
Farmers who know when to
“shift up and throttle back” can
save up to a quarter of their trac
tor fuel, says a Texas A&M Uni
versity agricultural engineering
professor who plans to help
them do it.
“Shifting up and throttling
back,” or operating a tractor in a
higher gear when it is used for
light loads (mowing or raking),
may reduce fuel consumption as
much as 25 percent, said Dr. Bill
Stout, program director.
“Tractors and other agricul
ture vehicles consume about one
percent of the nation’s energy,”
Stout said, “and fuel costs to in
dividual farmers are becoming
an increasing burden.”
The University, its agricultu
ral engineering department and
Deere and Co. are working to
develop a system that can be
attached to the tractor to indi
cate fuel usage and suggest the
most efficient gear ratio.
The system monitors various
aspects of the tractor and engine
operation such as engine load,
speed and fuel consumption.
“Even though 25 percent of
one percent doesn’t sound like
much,” Stout said, “it will reduce
the fuel cost to farmers as well as
save energy.”
Engines operate most effi
ciently within a narrow range of
engine loads and speeds, Stout
said, and when tractors are op
erated at part load (a common
practice on farms), significant
fuel savings can be achieved by
shifting up and throttling back.
The idea of “shifting up and
throttling back” isn’t new, but
there has been no reliable way to
know when to do it. Several uni
versities and companies are
working on the concept, but
there is no commercial product
available now.
Texas A&M’s Tractor Per
formance Optimization project,
which began six months ago,
aims at developing such a pro
duct.
Help for ag
The study has two basic ob
jectives. First, to determine how
tractors are used on Texas
farms, especially the load on the
tractor. Second, to optimize
tractor performance by provid
ing information to the operator
so he can use the tractor more
efficiently.
Deere and Co. is loaning
Texas A&M a John Deere trac
tor and other equipment
needed for the study.
The tractor will be used on
Texas A&M experiment station
farms early this summer, and re
searchers hope the tractor will
be used on commercial farms by
1983.
Stout’s co-workers on the
project are Steve Searcy and
Wayne LePori, also of the agri
cultural engineering depart
ment.
Reductions key to aid
By CHERYL BURKE
Questions surrounding gov
ernmental control of agricultu
ral commodities have risen once
again since the Secretary of
Agriculture recently announced
acreage reduction requirements
for major 1982 crops.
“Last year was probably the
worst year for agriculture since
the depression of the 1930s,”
said Dr. Clive R. Harston, pro
fessor of agricultural economics
at Texas A&M University.
The agricultural situation in
1933 was so drastic that Con
gress passed the Agricultural
Adjustment Act as an emergen
cy measure.
The act gave farmers who cut
back production a direct sup
port payment and provided for
the destruction of surplus pro
ducts, Harston said, and had a
disastrous effect. This effect
created a bad image for the
program and such a measure
has never been repeated.
To be eligible for price sup
port loans and deficiency pay
ments, producers must reduce
their 1981 planted acreages of
upland cotton by 15 percent,
wheat by 15 percent, corn and
grain by 10 percent, barley and
oats by 10 percent and rice by 15
percent.
Be a Member of Saddle
& Sirloin and Be a Part
3 %
*4 C?
TAMU
of This:
Children's Barnyard
Benefit Horse Show
Ham Sales
Special Charity Projects
Dances & Picnics
Little Southwestern:
Showmanship Contest
Judging Contest
Ham Show & Sale
The Agriculture Act of 1981
states that reduced acreage, if
set aside, must be devoted to
conservation. The cost of the
four-year act has been estimated
at $12 billion.
Another production control
method, tried in 1954, was the
Soil Bank Program. Underthij
program, farmers volunteered
to take their entire farms out of
production and received sup
port payments for doing so, The
phrase “paying not to produce"
became associated with this
program.
“It had bad publicity, but it
was not a bad program because
it really makes more economic
sense to take out of production
the poorest farms and let oni|
the more efficient farms stay in
production,” Harston pointed
out, “but that was not a good
political policy.
Meetings: 1st & 3rd Tuesday of the Month
Kleberg 115
Other production controls
were Public Law 480, which pro
vided for the shipping of sur
pluses to underdeveloped coun
tries and disaster-stricken areas
and the Conservation Reserve
Programs, which offered incen
tives to farmers who set aside
land for conservation.
It is highly debatable whether
control progranrs will keep pro
duction in line, Harston said,
and it is impossible to predict all
the factors influencing produc
tion, marketing, and prices.
“If there are going to be price
supports, then it is absolutely
essential that supply is control
led, and if there are no price
supports, then the farmers just
have to be willing to accept what
the market will bring," Harston
concluded.