Like many of your readers I live in the countryside, out of reach of modern broadband and barely in range of cellular service. I, for one, would like to see that situation improved.

The problem is that the population and income densities where I live are just too low for the major telecom companies to make money. They’re too big and inefficient.

But as far as broadband goes, there is a cottage industry of tiny companies who boldly go where no telecom has gone before, into these low density rural areas.

They are called WISPs, for Wireless Internet Service Providers. But the WISPs lack the funds to build out a network that reaches into all the nooks and crannies of southern Ohio. So, most of our citizens continue to go unserved.

Now there may be some glimmer of hope. The Obama administration has promised millions of dollars to bring broadband to rural America, knowing as they do that economic development can be stimulated by such an investment.

There is a scramble going on to prepare proposals to use that money throughout Ohio.

Gov. Strickland has made it clear he does not wish to see Ohio come to the table with competing proposals. He wants one fully integrated and collaborative approach pitched to the federal government.

But there is a risk for southern Ohio in the way the proposal may be taking shape. If the final proposal favors a top down approach, the investment may only get broadband as far as hospitals, industrial parks and such.

Rural residents could see nothing for all the investment their tax dollars have made.

The proposal must also look at the problem from the bottom up. This is exactly what several WISPs are doing. The Ohio Appalachian Broadband Coalition, a coalition of WISPs all operating in southern Ohio, has put together a proposal which desperately needs to be included in the Ohio proposal. The Appalachian Ohio Broadband Plan has a number of features to recommend it.

First, it will cover 33 southern Ohio counties with a goal of reaching every citizen in those counties.

Second, it relies heavily on existing infrastructure such as towers and water tanks, thereby lowering the costs to build.

Third, because it does use existing infrastructure elements, the coalition can begin signing up customers within two weeks of receiving funding.

The administration has stressed that it is looking for “shovel ready” projects. If that doesn’t qualify I don’t know what does.

So if you want to see broadband deployed effectively in southern Ohio, I urge you to contact your congressional representative (Jean Schmidt, Charles Wilson or Zack Space), your state representative and Gov. Strickland’s office.

Urge them to look carefully at the Appalachian Ohio Broadband Plan and demand that it be a part of the collaborative Ohio proposal.

Otherwise, be ready to be left behind on broadband access for maybe another decade or two. This may be our one and only shot at getting this right. Let’s not miss it.

James Chalker

Blue Creek, Ohio

An article on a Web site, taken from USDA’s Livestock, Dairy, Poultry Outlook Report, dated June 17, 2009, grabbed my attention when it stated that commercial dairy exports this year are expected to total 19.7 billion pounds on a skims/solids basis.

How could this be? Exports of nonfat dry milk were very strong last year totaling 391,363.6 metric tons, which equals about 7.7 billion pounds on a skims/solids basis.

However, we do export a lot of dry whey which is a byproduct of cheese making and has little or no value in the farmer’s milk check (other solids nonfat [OSNF]) after the $.1991 per pound make allowance is deducted.

OSNF averages run about 5.7 percent so it could be said that 1 pound of dry whey represents 17.55 pounds of milk on a skims/solids basis.

Thus, 350,341 metric tons of dry whey exported in 2008 would represent 13.55 billion pounds of milk, according to USDA.

In the first four months of 2009, the U.S. exported 111,000 metric tons of dry whey, representing nearly 4.3 billion pounds of milk.

The “market price” for dry whey averaged $.1716 per pound January through April, which meant deductions in farmers’ milk checks, after make allowances were taken out.

The average export price for dry whey was $.488 per pound while farmers were charged an average of $.028 per pound for OSNF in Order 1 or about $.16 per hundredweight of milk. What a deal!

If farmers had been paid based on the export price of $.488 per pound for dry whey, it would have increased milk checks by $1.80 per hundredweight.

I am wondering how a $.316 a pound price difference between “market price” and export price is justified considering the export price of nonfat dry milk was only about $.10 a pound above market price during the same period.

Now we know how these large volume figures for skims/solids basis is arrived at. Of course protein is much more valuable. The imports of casein and milk protein concentrate represented approximately 12 billion pounds in 2008 on a skims/solids basis.

In a related subject, according to USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS), total dairy imports outpaced exports by about $211 million January through April 2009. Also, USDA has apparently ignored requests to purchase nonfat dry milk from government stocks for humanitarian food aide.

All of this makes one wonder what is really going on in these days of vast “over-supply.”

Gerald Carlin

Meshoppen, Pa.

I would like to comment on Alan Guebert’s great article on NAIS in the June 18 Farm and Dairy. His lines, “flaws are as wide and deep as its unknowns…” and “no farmer wants a new expressway built between him and the federal courthouse” are excellent observations!

With the correct picture he has drawn of this flawed attack on farmers, the error of the article is, “USDA have encouraged just 35 percent of livestock owners to register their premises…”

Guebert, like many of us, believes USDA to be honest, and they should be.

This 35 percent number is over triple the real true number. USDA is juggling the data. They get to count the ones enrolled, not us. Don’t believe them.

They also invented a total dishonest number of 1.4 million livestock producing premises in the USA. The USDA’s own 2007 census blows past that number more than double.

To get down to a tiny 1.4 number, they eliminated all farms with less than $1,000 livestock income last year. That was 499,800 that they evaporated.

USDA accidentally forgot to include the 1.96 million horse premises (American Horse Council) housing 9.2 million horses.

Easily we are over 3.85 million farms right there. Add to that penned large game, zoos, etc.

The fact is, when USDA says they have over 35 percent enrolled, if you place an “honesty meter” on it, they have less than 9 percent.

Also, many of those farms are in the process, at this minute, of filing to be removed.

It is a great article. But USDA is a tarnished division of our government with an old reputation of honesty and integrity that has now totally changed and stinks to the high heavens.

Their forced feeding of NAIS to farms would gage a coon dog. Guebert should keep up the very good work, and be sure — it is much worse than he indicated.

Darol Dickinson

Barnesville, Ohio

These days, the subject one is most likely to hear on the evening news is the state of the economy.

The U.S.A. is a young country compared to England, France, Germany, Africa and several other countries. Why must we help all of these foreign countries that are much older than ours?

Also, given the economic problems that we are experiencing today, wouldn’t this be an excellent time to collect debts incurred during World Wars I and II? The only country that has paid its debt to America is Finland. England and France have never repaid their war debts and we are still paying France for the upkeep of our military cemeteries.

Russia obtained ships from our country on lend lease during World War II and then used these ships to transport war material to North Vietnam during the North Vietnam Conflict. Russia has never paid for these ships.

Why must the American taxpayer bailout not only the banks in our own country, but subsidize the rest of the world as well? Worse still, it just keeps going on. Where is the change?

Hazel M. White

Stockport, Ohio

In your May 28, 2009 article, “Sun is shining on those interested in solar energy,” it is claimed that Pennsylvania consumers could reduce “purchase and installation costs of solar energy technology” by 45 percent.

How? By taking advantage of federal tax credits and Pennsylvania’s Sunshine and Solar Program rebates.

The case of one couple is cited as an example. They’ve been anxiously waiting for the state’s solar rebate program to take effect to help them pay for the installation of a solar system that the article points out will cost $30,000 and, assuming their case is typical, save them half of their yearly electrical energy costs, or $620 per year — a 48-year payback.

The state rebate, together with the federal tax credit, will reduce the cost by $13,500 (45 percent).

Or, to look at it another way, by $13,500 taken out of the pockets of their neighbors, some of whom perhaps have recently been forced to take a cut in pay, have lost their jobs, or are having their homes or farms foreclosed.

But be that as it may, it still leaves $16,500 for the couple to finance on their own — a 26-year payback.

Solar energy: the wave of the future!

The writer of the article is to be commended for stating the cost of this lobbyist-generated environmental fraud. That’s usually not the case, especially when it comes to wind energy.

There the cost is never stated, only the computer-generated results, which are usually stated something like this: “there will be enough electricity generated to supply 15,000 homes.”

But thanks to the Internet, once in awhile the truth comes out: “Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 megawatts in size and cost roughly $3.5 million installed …Wind turbines under 100 kilowatts cost roughly $3,000 to $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity.

That means a 10-kilowatt machine (the size needed to power an average home) might cost $35,000-$50,000.”

That’s according to www.windustry.org/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost.

Wind energy: the wave of the future!

Poor misguided wind generation enthusiasts: torn between their fanatical zeal to eliminate the source of cheap energy (coal; nuclear) and their desire to stop the ruination of nature’s pristine beauty by developers and others … like us.

They’re already hard at work in several northeast Ohio communities along the shores of Lake Erie where plans are being laid to erect a number of these wind monstrosities out on the lake — all done at the expense of the tax paying public, or, as one writer recently coined, the sheeple.

That’s a good one. The word helps to explain why those who are forced to bear the burden of paying for such mindless fanaticism do so without a whimper.

Clyde Nehrenz

Sullivan, Ohio

I would like to comment on Al Cross’ article about USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack’s push to add carbon credits for agriculture to the proposed “cap and trade” system.

If the Climate Bill is truly designed to improve the environment, then it would be counterproductive to include agricultural operations, particularly any livestock operations to the credit side of the equation, and bringing agriculture into the discussions could well lead to much tighter regulations rather than any direct benefits to agriculture or our economy.

While relatively unimportant for CO2 emissions, the agriculture sector is a major source of other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, notably nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4).

According to the U.S. EPA, globally, livestock are the largest source of methane from human-related activities — and in the U.S., the third largest source.

Livestock production can also result in emissions of nitrous oxide, a very potent greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas.

Over half of the world’s anthropogenic methane emissions are produced by agricultural activities. The primary sources of agricultural ethane include domesticated ruminant livestock, rice cultivation and the handling and processing of livestock manure.

In addition, about half of the emissions from biomass burning are attributed to agriculture.

Natural Sources of Methane Emissions

Source

Wetlands

Termites

Oceans and fresh water

Gas hydrates

Estimated Amount

(million metric tons/year)

115

20

15

5

TOTAL 155

Emissions

Source

Domesticated livestock

Rice farming

Natural gas, petroleum processing and use

Coal mining

Biomass burning

Landfills

Livestock manure

Wastewater treatment

Estimated Amount

(million metric tons/year)

80

60

50

40

40

30

25

25

TOTAL 350

Ron Stidmon

Enon Valley, Pa.

I feel mildly abused and somewhat insulted by Ms. Seabolt’s column of May 21, 2009. Having worked in the food industry most of my life, I take strong exception to the writer’s conclusion that the food industry employs some evil genius to play “bait and switch” with package contents to bilk the public.

She is almost totally ignorant of the evolution that has taken place. I grew up in the depression and saw it happen, most of which was to the good.

For example, take coffee. In 1932, more than 50 percent of the population lived on farms. They seldom went to town more than once a week and many times once in two or three weeks.

Many households were extended families of two or three generations and sometimes with a hired man mixed in. So, the quantity of coffee consumed at home was greater.

No Starbucks in those days or any other coffee carryout. The only coffee consumed not at home was perhaps with a meal or a piece of pie and a cup of coffee — both, rare indulgences in those days.

Hence, since coffee gets stale rather quickly and you may want to stock regular and decaf, the package quantity has declined.

As to cereals, in 1932, the only cold cereals I can recall were Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Post Toasties and NBC’s Shredded Wheat Biscuits. Now that there has been a great proliferation of brands and smaller families, the same evolution has taken place.

Overall, food is the cheapest it has ever been. In 1900, all food consumed took more than 50 percent of disposable income; in 1933 it took 24 percent; in 1979 it took 16.6 percent and today takes less than 14 percent (my latest information).

Food prices have gone up, but not nearly as much as wages. For example, in 1950 the average manufacturing wage was $1.44 per hour and milk was $.18 per quart. In one hour you could earn enough to buy eight quarts.

In 2009, the average manufacturing wage is $14.32 and milk is $1.07 per quart. One hour of work will get you 13.4 quarts.

Ms. Seabolt, please, do your homework before you complain.

Nels E. Scheel

Columbiana, Ohio

As a Farm Bureau member, the victim of one of the six Park Farms broiler grow-out operations now unable to sell my home for its market value, I do hope that Farm Bureau realizes it must treat all its members the same.

For years, I called attention to the plight of our situation by attending meetings in Columbus on this issue, but to no avail.

Perhaps now with the entrance of the Humane Society of the United States, Ohio will wake up and declare a two-tier system of animal industry: those requiring permits being called commercial, and prohibited from enjoying zoning abatements.

There are serious medical issues near confinement operations. In 2002, my husband was recuperating after having cataract surgery, when the barns owned by Park Farms located directly across from our home were cleaned out. As a result, the fungi and viruses came our way. My husband became ill, was taken to the hospital and died Dec. 2, 2002.

You would think this was coincidental, except for the following year when the same exact thing happened. This time, it was my neighbor to the north that was taken ill.

I was in Galena for Thanksgiving and when I got home, I received a call from a worried son in Kentucky asking me to check on his mother. I found her very ill, called the rescue squad and she was taken to the hospital, where she remained for close to three months with some type of bacterial infection.

I am delighted that some organization with some clout will come into Ohio and protect the existing homes from this mass invasion of confinement operations. I contend we would be better off subsidizing small- and medium-sized farms and creating a two tier system of animal industry. This would protect the personal property rights for everyone, as Farm Bureau claims they do, but which they failed to do in my case.

Our home will be auctioned off June 25. I am living with my daughter while recuperating from two surgeries. I am hopeful that someone will step up to the plate of responsibility on the issue of my home and property.

Perhaps a pipe dream, but with the entrance of the Humane Society of the United States, perhaps not.

Mary G. Gibson
Galena, Ohio

I recently analyzed a USDA spreadsheet for National Animal Identification System (NAIS) bribes — sanitized as cooperative agreements. These are the funds received by tribes, states, government employees and companies who promise to enroll properties for USDA.

Listed is only a scintilla of the cost; the real cost is well above published data required by law. (more…)

I found the article from Normand St-Pierre about feeding for pounds of fat and protein to be quite interesting, and his closing comments in particular.

“In essence, dairy producers make their money on the fat and protein produced, around 7 pounds per hundredweight of milk in Holstein cows and lose money producing the remaining 93 pounds. Those who understand this reality will focus on producing the maximum amounts of fat and protein in the smallest volume possible.”

His conclusion is a ringing endorsement of the Jersey breed. The average Jersey cow on test in Ohio produces 8.3 pounds of butterfat and protein per hundredweight, leaving only 91.7 pounds of milk on the “losing” side of the ledger.

Erick Metzger

Reynoldsburg, Ohio

(American Jersey Cattle Association)